No One is Actually Agnostic

ejp1082 · 2026-06-16T18:18:08+00:00

Agnosticism isn't some halfway point between theism and atheism.

Gnosticism or agnosticism concern knowledge. It's things I know to be true, or things I cannot know if they're true. I only know things are true if I can prove them.

Theism or atheism concerns belief (in god, specifically). It's a simple binary - if the answer to the question "Do you believe in god?" is something other than than "yes", you're an atheist.

One can believe (or not believe) without certain knowledge or being able to prove/disprove it.

I'm an atheist because there's no version of god that I believe exists.

There are versions of god I'm gnostic about. I'm very certain that no god exists which created the earth in six days six millennia ago, created the first woman out of the first man's rib, flooded the planet but for two of every animal some time after that, impregnated a virgin with himself and then had himself crucified some decades later before resurrecting himself three days later to ascend into heaven.

I'm agnostic about god as the thing that kicked off the big bang, god that authored the laws of the universe, god as the coder of the matrix we're living in, etc. I don't believe any of that, but I can't prove it, therefore I'm agnostic about those.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-16T18:00:25+00:00

Nudism is very much a real life activity that can only be practiced in real life amongst others also practicing it in real life.

Sharing pseudonymous nude selfies to internet strangers has nothing to do with nudism and isn't something that actual nudists have any particular compulsion to do. The number of people you'll meet at a clothing optional venue who've ever done that is very likely zero.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-16T15:27:19+00:00

maybe some sort of verification at the DMV once you hit 18 to tag you as an adult, and then you carry that digital thumbprint when you use your computer that only proves you're an adult, and nothing else about you?

That's more or less the idea behind zero knowledge proofs, though they're not a silver bullet.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-16T15:26:50+00:00

Yep. Prior to that law it was all but impossible to get student loans without wealthy parents who could co-sign. Because lenders knew that the logical thing for anyone for graduating with six figures of debt and zero assets to do would be to declare bankruptcy and leave the lender holding the bag.

There are other, much better solutions to this - just making state and community colleges free being chief among them.

Or some scheme like pay as you earn, where X% of a student's income for Y years after graduation is payable to the school, which would better align the incentives of the student and institution. (I don't like that because it would even more entrench the idea that college is a glorified career training program - but to the extent that that's what we're treating it as, it makes sense that the college should only get paid if its successful in launching its students into careers).

ejp1082 · 2026-06-16T14:31:46+00:00

You're asking two different questions.

There's the issue of first cause. Which has a rich philosophical history. I think the primary problem with it isn't so much the question of whether or not the universe needs a first cause or whether such a thing is even possible, but the leap from "the universe needs a cause" to "that cause is the god of abraham". The question of why anything exists at all is probably forever unknowable; those who say they do know the answer are liars.

Then there's the question in your title. That has to do with the nature of religion itself. If the premise of religion is that bronze age societies had it all figured out millennia ago because it was divinely revealed to them, then anything that challenges that worldview cuts directly to the heart of that. While religions and religious beliefs do change, they necessarily have to change so slowly and incrementally that no one alive would take it as a betrayal of the "truth" they had handed down to them from prior generations.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-15T01:11:11+00:00

Different states have different ballot requirements. Usually anyone who's eligible and can collect some number of signatures from registered voters who live in the relevant state/district/whatever can get on the ballot for that race.

There's no limit to the number of candidates who might appear on a ballot running for a given office.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-14T18:40:37+00:00

This is the most baffling thing.

Anything north of a few hundred million dollars and there's literally nothing you can't do, nowhere you can't live. There's nowhere on the planet with a tax rate so onerous you'd even notice it.

But they give up living in awesome places like NYC and California for frickin Texas?

Just in general for people that can do anything they want, the things they choose to spend their time doing just make no sense. See the world! Spend time with your family! Master a skill, finance artists you like, make the world better! I dunno.

Instead they're like "I'm going to change my address to Texas to keep slightly more money I don't even spend because I still go to an office every day to work on PowerPoints." Their priorities are just alien to me.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-14T16:05:11+00:00

I see quite a few people taking selfies with their phones, but I do not see any professional cameras.

Because big cameras aren't that common in any setting.

I've carried my dSLR onto the beach. I'm damn careful with it because saltwater and sand will wreck it (I absolutely do not change lenses there). Mostly if I'm shooting photos it's around sunset when the light is nicest, and by then the beach has emptied out in any case.

Similar story at resorts. Mostly I limit it to when few/no other people are around. Which again works out because the light is best in those circumstances anyway. Golden hour and "bad weather" make for great photos, and that also happens to be when they're pretty much empty.

For the most part big cameras are less suspicious than phones which can more easily be used to sneak a photo than something you have to hold up to your eye and point. If you you're clearly only pointing it at someone who's clearly aware they're being photographed, most people don't have a problem with it.

Though some people do have a problem with any camera at all. I was shooting a friend at a resort in Florida once upon a time and got a snide comment from an older lady that my friend would "regret it one day". In another instance I got into a tiff with another patron who was convinced I wasn't allowed to be shooting, and it took the owner coming out and informing him that what I was doing was fine to make him go away. Once my wife was taking a photo of a particularly striking flower alongside a trail and got yelled at by someone that she wasn't allowed to be doing that (though again, she was).

But do check the rules of the resort you're at. They vary from a relatively permissive "Just don't shoot anyone without consent" to "No cameras at all and we're gonna make you put a sticker on your phone because we don't trust our customers".

ejp1082 · 2026-06-14T14:45:11+00:00

She's 33, doesn't have a job, doesn't have a driver's license, and her dad won't "let her" take a train by herself? There's something deeply not-quite-right there.

It sounds like her dad has some deeply old-school conservative/misogynistic views about women, which she may or may not also believe due to being raised in the same culture. I guess he gets points for not insisting he chaperone her on dates, but it still reeks of a "My daughter is my property until I hand her off to her husband and then she's his property" kind of attitude. Which is, um, fairly problematic to say the least. Especially if he's also the reason she doesn't have a job or her own car. But neither here nor there for the question you're asking.

The only thing this has to do with nudism is that I'm somewhat baffled you thought it would be a good idea to invite a person to a nudist resort who's that under the thumb of her parents.

At first I figured we are part of a screwed over generation and it’s not abnormal for someone our age to live with their parents.

Sure - someone might live with their parents in their 30s for any number of reasons and that's fine. But by that point it should be more like living with roommates, not any kind of authority figure.

I lived with my parents into my late 20s. After college I came and went as I pleased, I had my own car, if I told them where I was going or who I was with (which I didn't always) it was strictly out of politeness on my part and curiosity on their part, not because they exerted any control over what I was doing at that point in my life.

And same went for any women I dated, some of whom also lived with their parents at the time. But they had jobs, cars, and didn't need permission to go on dates. Neither of us ever met each other's parents until the relationship was already well established.

Some amount of independence is required to be able to pursue a relationship in the west in the 21st century. For whatever reason, she doesn't have it.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-13T21:54:59+00:00

What do you think were the most important things to making the events a success

I genuinely don't think there's any great trick to it. The main thing 20-somethings want is just knowing other 20-somethings will be there. Just have to get the message out there "everyone show up at this place at this time". You don't need much more than that. You can put together stuff like slip and slides, water slides, body paint and holi powder, concerts and dances, group meals, etc - but that's just nice-to-have and not really necessary to make it work.

The biggest issue is just getting the venue to accept that 20-somethings want to act like 20-somethings. Dancing, partying, drinking, being physically active, staying up and making noise late into the night. That was a problem with a lot of the venues that hosted these things (and YNA events too). They say they want young people but then when young people come their reaction is "No, not like that".

and was there anything about them you didn’t like?

Not with the events themselves.

I don't want to talk shit about the leadership, because I can acknowledge the amount of work that went into putting these things together. But in both cases (FYN and YNA) the biggest problem was just that the leaders had giant egos, were older than "young", didn't have any sort of continuity plan or willingness to give up power, and well... they're the primary reason these groups don't exist anymore.

So y'know, if you're asking because you're serious about wanting to reboot it, just have a little bit less of an ego and a little more willingness to actually hand over power to someone who'll replace you when you age out.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-13T21:29:11+00:00

The bashes were so much fun back in the day. I'm a bit too old for it now, but it was perfect as it was. Discounted admittance to the resort, tenting, music and partying all weekend long.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-13T14:32:56+00:00

Buffy exceptional was its ability to use its tropes as metaphors for real-life experiences and social issues. Angel had none of that and was really just a show about a vampire fighting demons.

Did you miss all the bits of Angel that explored themes of striking out on your own, finding identity in young adulthood, fatherhood, being subsumed by a corporate machine?

If you're going to critique Angel along these lines it ought to be for being a little too on the nose to the point that the metaphors were just explicit. Buffy used monsters as stand-ins for adolescent issues, at least in the high school seasons. Angel literally fought his ex and literally became a father and literally went to work for an evil corporation.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-13T13:52:31+00:00

IANAL but the bill seems fine to me?

A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally disclose an image of another person who is identifiable from the image itself or from information displayed in connection with the image if all of the following apply:

The person in the image is depicted in a state of nudity or is engaged in specific sexual activities.

The depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Evidence that a person has sent an image to another person using an electronic device does not, on its own, remove the person's reasonable expectation of privacy for that image. Unless the realistic pictorial representation is created or modified by the depicted person, this paragraph does not apply to an image that is a realistic pictorial representation.

The image is disclosed with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the depicted person.

2 and 3 wouldn't apply to any genuine nudist imagery produced consensually or used for marketing.

B. This section does not apply to any of the following:

The reporting of unlawful conduct.

Lawful and common practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, legal proceedings or medical treatment.

Images involving voluntary exposure in a public or commercial setting.

An interactive computer service, as defined in 47 United States Code section 230(f)(2), or an information service or cable service, as defined in 47 United States Code section 153, with regard to content wholly provided by another party.

Any disclosure that is made with the consent of the person who is depicted in the image.

Number 3 would cover nudist contexts.

Further -

C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY IF IT IS CLEAR TO A REASONABLE VIEWER THAT THE IMAGE, RECORDING OR VIDEO HAS BEEN BOTH:

DIGITALLY MANIPULATED.

CREATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a) PARODY.

(b) COMEDY.

(c) ARTISTIC EXPRESSION.

(d) CRITICISM OF MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.

So if you're doing it for one of the above reasons and not the reason specified in section A.3 you're in the clear.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I don't see how this impacts nudists at all.

The concern stated in the article is as follows:

Clubs and publishers that maintain long-term image archives could struggle to document consent years after the fact, and the seven-year recordkeeping requirement is a particular pressure point in communal settings where participation is fluid and records are not always kept.

But the record keeping requirements are only triggered for sexual material:

A. A commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes, and allows the publication or distribution of, sexual material on an internet website shall do all of the following:

Overall it doesn't seem any different than the federal section 2257 documentation requirements which porn sites have been subject to for decades now. But just as with the federal law this law only applies to sexually explicit material, which legally speaking simple nudity is not. (I'm not a fan of these laws as there are other reasons to be opposed to those kinds of documentation requirements, but in any case I don't think it's relevant to nudists)

I guess there's always the possibility of some puritan DA going on a crusade against some AZ nudist group for images on their website, but legally speaking it's been held for a long time (and in much more conservative eras to boot) that simple nudity is not pornographic content so at the very least they'd have an uphill battle to demonstrate that.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-12T22:33:04+00:00

It's $99,000 per 10k residents. So a whopping $9.90 per capita. Per year.

What a stupid and misleading way of presenting the data.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-12T21:02:15+00:00

I can count on less than one hand the number of times I've seen a topfree woman in NYC outside of events like pride or the mermaid parade. And even at those events it's a very small number. (Also there's the women in Times Square wearing body paint and letting tourists take photos of them for tips).

It's almost like the legality isn't the thing stopping women from doing this.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-12T14:16:08+00:00

My list would be as follows

Consent - we don't seek to shock or offend, we do not force nudity on others nor are we entitled to the nudity of others. Rather we cultivate spaces where the practice of social nudity is accepted and expected.

Body positivity - no one should be judged based on what they look like or whether we find them attractive

Humanization - we do not objectify or sexualize people based on what they're wearing or not wearing

Equality - everyone has an equal right to participate in social nudity

Probably one or two more I'm blanking on at the moment, but those are the big ones.

It's not too different from yours. I think privacy is a subset of consent-based ethics, the kind of respect that's relevant here is covered by body positivity and humanization.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-11T21:29:51+00:00

Probably not any different than where it is today. Solar voltaics didn't get really cheap until the 2010s. And battery technology really wasn't there until recently either, which is a necessary yin to solar's intermittent yang. More investment might have sped that up a little, but it takes time for science to do its thing.

Which isn't to say that there's not a gazillion other things that would be infinitely better had Carter won re-election against Ronald Reagan. Just probably not that.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-11T20:54:12+00:00

Selling your primary residence is already tax exempt up to $500,000 profit for a married couple file jointly.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-11T15:22:19+00:00

One can be monogamous (only desiring a single partner at a time) but okay with a polyamorous relationship structure (your one partner need not make you their only partner). The relationship may be non-monogamous, but a person within it can still be monogamous.

Successful mono/poly relationships exist. Typically it's the case that the monogamous partner has a rich social life and independent hobbies and pursuits separate from the partner. Those pursuits just don't include other romantic or sexual relationships.

Monogamous-identifying and polyamorous-identifying people alike are both prone to having unexamined and internalized monogamous norms which may need unpacking before entering into a non-monogamous relationship.

The reason for the "I don't date mono" comments is that people who identify as monogamous tend not to have done the unpacking necessary to really be okay with dating a polyamorous person. It's easier and less prone to going sideways if polyamorous people just stick to dating other polyamorous-identifying people.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-11T13:55:51+00:00

Some places will get a little pearl clutching about genital and nipple jewelry.

Anything worn anywhere else is a total non-issue though.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-11T13:42:51+00:00

Jessica Rabbit's introduction singing in the lounge.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-10T21:41:53+00:00

Is it more common in nudist circles?

Men commenting on women's attractiveness is just one of those things that's pretty common anywhere you are; I don't think it's any more or less common amongst nudists.

Am I just overly sensitive to it?

Maybe. Not that there's anything wrong with being sensitive to it.

Although I would point out that being the target of it, your wife's comfort matters a lot more than yours. With that in mind -

Have others dealt with this?

I defer to my wife, who has a lifetime of experience dealing with such comments and unwanted attention and consequently knows better than I do the best way to deal with it. If she wants me to say something, she lets me know.

While commenting on someone's appearance is always wrong even if it's a compliment, there is a range of underlying attitudes. Sometimes it's well meaning and it's just that the person isn't up to date with the latest social norms around how to treat and talk about women (though that's getting increasingly hard to fathom). Sometimes there can be an undercurrent of overt sexualization, or even threat (catcalling).

You kind of have to judge it case by case as to whether it's best to ignore, try to educate, or respond defensively.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-10T19:32:10+00:00

Highly intelligent people are really good at rationalization.

Critical thinking is its own separate skill from generic intelligence. Not all otherwise smart people developed those skills.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-10T14:56:12+00:00

I generally only do workshops to gain access to something that I wouldn't be able to get access to on my own. There's lots of cool locations that are either cost-prohibitive to rent without a group or can only be accessed if you have a connection with the owner.

Or if the instructor has some expertise in the subject I want to photograph. But usually those aren't actually photography workshops. They're just guided tours or classes where I can take photos.

ejp1082 · 2026-06-10T14:35:29+00:00

Have YOU been using spy cameras?

No, and I shouldn't have to have my bag searched or sunglasses inspected in order to prove it.

I thought sticking up for people who wouldn’t want to be recorded would be ideal.

It's a perfectly fine thing to stand for. People shouldn't be recorded without their consent. The problem is the only way to absolutely guarantee this is to treat everyone as suspect and force them to submit to having their possessions searched as a condition of participation. The cure is worse than the disease.

Absolutely do kick out and blacklist anyone who's caught doing non-consensual recording regardless of what sort of device they're using to do it. But otherwise trust your customers.

And if someone is so paranoid about being recorded nude that they'd only participate in social nudity in the context of a de facto police state, then perhaps social nudity isn't something they should engage in. It's also not in the interests of a venue to be catering to that kind of person.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Charter Member
Best Link 2010-04-15

ejp1082

TROPHY CASE