Global warming causes…
Male sperm count to go down, which equals…
Less babies, which equals…
Less humans, which means…
Less pollution, and ergo…
Global warming solved.
Here it is in equation form:
Global warming = low male sperm count = less babies = less humans = less pollution = no global warming.
Folks, it’s a self-solving problem.
Any adult person who is religious deserves to be lied to.
The one thing religious people & atheists agree on is that there is no proof behind religious belief systems, & there probably never will be.
If you are a religious person who has put any thought into your beliefs, you understand that they are not supported by any verifiable facts or data.
By believing things that are not supported by facts & have no basis in concrete evidence or even strong suggestion, what you are saying is that facts don’t matter to you.
If facts don’t matter to you, then the difference between true & false is a very blurry line.
If the difference between true & false is blurry, honey, then yes, I stayed late at the office, “working.”
How to Program a Sex Robot: List-Based vs Open World
There are two ways to approach the programming of sexuality & sexual functions into a sex robot.
Sex can be envisioned as a set of serialized, goal-oriented tasks that must be accomplished in a given order by the bot. Or sex can be explored as an open world experience with side missions available that allow the bot to deviate from the primary objective in order to aggregate more experience/pleasure/adventure points.
In the list-based model, the bot is programmed with a number of checkpoints it must reach with its human partner. These may include items such as Comfort, Attraction, Consent, Arousal, Physical Stimulation, Climax, and finally Auto-Climax (if the bot’s reward system is programmed to include some kind of auto-climax function).
These checkpoints may not need to be reached in a strict chronological order: Consent, for instance, may come before or after Comfort. Certain thresholds would, however, have to be reached before others: Consent would need to come before Physical Stimulation, and Arousal would usually come before Climax.
A list-based model gives the bot a clear set of goals which may be reached by performing a varied but limited set of tasks. This simple, straightforward model avoids confusing the bot and ensures that a safe, acceptable-minimum level of pleasure is guaranteed to the human partner.
The open world model may still include many of the same primary objectives, but these are accompanied by a layer of secondary objectives which can be more open-ended. These secondary objectives can be treated as side missions which may or may not directly contribute to the primary sexual objectives, but which may be based on an alternative reward system made to emulate in some ways the human sense of adventure.
Having sex under the stars, for instance, may actually detract from the primary objectives of Arousal and Climax due to temperature or comfort factors. As such it would have no place in the list-based sexual model.
In the open world model, however, the bot is programmed to see value beyond its rote set of basic tasks, and perhaps even to recognize the uncommon as a kind of value in itself (within certain limitations). It is thus driven to seek experiences and adventures that deviate from the fundamental elements of its sexual functions.
This can then become a sort of ‘Let’s Try This…’ subroutine which can be inserted as an IF-THEN initiative loop to be presented to the human partner for final approval during any given sexual encounter.
Trying out new sexual functions, activities, locations, velocities, and angles may be added to the bot’s reward system as an expansion pack to ensure the bot’s programming continues to evolve as it learns new things, as well as to avoid monotony for the human partner. The bot’s primary objectives would, of course, still remain as overarching principles running in the background, gently guiding the side missions, and available to be completed whenever desired by the human partner.
I didn’t give up my seat on the bus today to the tired, heavyset woman standing beside me.
What exactly is it that offends you about this?
If we are two organisms jostling around on a rock in a vacuum, I would say I think the arc of the moral universe is indifferent towards me keeping my seat. At this long term level of morality, you being offended makes no sense.
If it’s polite for a man to give his seat to a woman, I would say I think you’re a misogynist.
If the stronger should protect and care for the weaker, I would say I think this is the specific level of morality where you have the strongest argument. As the more capable being, I have a moral obligation toward beings less capable than myself, and to keep my seat would be the moral equivalent of a conquistador annihilating a tribe or an extraterrestrial annihilating the human race. If you look at the situation through a morally-nearsighted lens, I have a moral imperative to bequeath the poor soul my seat. At this short term level of morality, the high ground belongs to you.
If sitting is the new smoking, however, I would say I think my moral imperative would be to keep my secondhand smoke to myself. If sedentary lifestyles kill in the medium term, then I am doing this woman a favor by keeping her on her feet. I exercise a lot more than she does and am therefore more capable of assuming on my shoulders the considerable risks involved in sitting. She may or may not even literally tell her friends that she doesn’t need the gym because she gets her exercise standing on the bus every day for an hour.
If diminishing pain and maximizing pleasure is your morality, the minutes of discomfort she may have to endure today will save her from a world of pain in the future.
If by sitting in her stead, I can prolong her life for even a mere hour – by keeping her heart rate up, her muscles flexed, and her blood circulating, which in turn will increase her organs’ lifespan, her physical capability, and her quality of life – do I not owe it to her to snatch that seat away, to remove the danger that lies in her path? Am I not sacrificing my own wellbeing for hers?
Should not we all grab the seats for ourselves, laying down our lives on the altar for humanity? Or is humanity under the perpetual curse of an instinctively narrow purview of morality that prevents us from seeing into even the medium term much less the long term?
The Democrats have just proven that in order to win, you have to appeal to black voters.
White male voters are 50/50 assholes, Latino voters have shown that their vote may swing either way, and white women voters are also notoriously fickle. The only way to guarantee you’ll win a presidency is to have a candidate that gets black voters out to vote.
The last two Democrat landslides were, 1) stylish saxophonist Bill Clinton (with a magical 90% black voter approval rating) and, 2) Barack Obama. The other party will probably always have a white candidate for the near future, so that demographic will always be pretty much wrapped up or at least hotly contested. If black voters have to choose between two white candidates, their vote could go either way, or could stay home. But if they get to choose between a white candidate and a black candidate, which candidate do you think the vast majority of black voters would be more likely to trust?
And any candidate who can win the trust of the majority of black voters, will win the election. A liberal black candidate who automatically gets the liberal white vote, the liberal Latino vote, the gay vote, and the black vote will landslide every time.
If the Democrats figure this out first, then our next few presidents will be Democrat and black, not necessarily in that order.
Until the Republicans catch up and start thinking about being able to stomach putting persons of color on their ticket.
Then it will be anyone’s game again.
Men who are unhappy with their sex lives find solutions.
We buy porn and hire prostitutes. We invest in our sex lives because they matter that much to us.
Women who are unhappy with their sex lives… complain about it to their friends?
You rarely hear a man whining about how his wife can’t find his glans. If you aren’t doing something right in bed, we won’t fake an orgasm and go to sleep, we’ll show you how to do it right. And if you can’t learn, by God, we’ll find someone else who will, even if we have to pay them for it.
That’s how much of a shit we give.
It’s telling that the disparity between people who complain about their sex lives and people who spend money on their sex lives is divided about equally across gender lines (estimated 25% of women regularly fake orgasms, & estimated 20% of men hire prostitutes). If I only drive cars that arrive on my doorstep for free, I would be a pretty shitty person if I complained about the condition of those cars.
And as they say, don’t look a gift cock in the mouth.
If you’re a woman and you complain about your sex life, tell me when’s the last time you demonstrated how much it mattered to you by spending money on it?
If you think porn is disgusting and way too male-oriented, tell me when’s the last time you paid for some you liked?
If your partner doesn’t do what you like in bed, tell me when’s the last time you hired someone who would?
Sex, like any other industry, follows the money.
So put your dirty money where your mouth is.
or Consent vs Nonsense
Dear Amber Rose,
I can go to a restaurant, sit down at a table, fold my napkin on my lap, call a waiter over, & then tell them that I don’t want anything to eat. I might not be welcomed back to the restaurant though.
I can spend years training to be an astronaut, pass my medical, physical, and psychological tests, become an expert in navigating the harsh environment of space, suit up, climb into a rocket, prep all systems for launch, and then let Houston know that I don’t actually want to go to the moon. No one’s going to force me to go to the moon.
I can run for president, throw millions of my own dollars into my campaign, travel incessantly around the country, perform all sorts of ethically dubious tricks to get voters on my side, by some miracle claim a decisive victory where it matters, and then refuse to go to intelligence briefings and tell my VP and Cabinet to do my job while I comb my hair in front of a golden mirror. My backers might feel cheated; but political, social, and sexual norms are very different from laws; and I wouldn’t be breaking any (laws, that is).
I am also well within my rights to go to the farmer’s market and stock up on beautiful, ripe, organic produce; go home and finely chop that produce into a delicious tossed salad; fire up the grill and cook up a piping hot grilled steak to round off my meal; and then throw that entire meal into the garbage and go to bed hungry. I can do that. I am allowed to change my mind.
The thing is, if I make a habit out of building walls and then banging my head against them, I might raise some eyebrows among the mental health professional community.
There are no laws against schizophrenic self-sabotage. So yes, you can say no to anything at any time. You can also say yes to anything at any time. I say yes to being a legendary rock star every day; doesn’t mean I am one.
If you take the ‘sense’ out of ‘consensual,’ all you’re left with is a big, fat con.
It might be helpful if we talked more CONsent and less NONsense.