Fun from Yahoo! Answers

The question:

Ethics of having non-reproductive intercourse with my brother?

I am 17 years old and my brother is 18. We are both above the age of consent in our state. We are very close, and our love is very strong. Recently we started making love; we both thought it would be interesting and fun, and it certainly was. Neither of us has any regrets or feelings of guilt.

I was already on birth control, but my brother used a condom just in case. We absolutely do not want to have kids, we just like the feeling of having sex. Making love with him always blows my mind, and it feels like a passionate, pure extension of our love. We told our parents, and they were supportive, so long as we continued to use contraceptives.

In this age of contraception, can the simple act of sex between siblings still be fairly labeled as ethically wrong?

Is it fair to assume that all cases of non-reproductive incest are abusive and not just an expression of love?

If the sex is consensual, and contraceptives are employed, how could anyone term our behavior as wrong?


No comments of a religious nature or concerning "god" please. We are both rational atheists, so that morality is irrelevant to us.

Look familiar? If you've visited yourmorals.org then maybe it should, being one of the questions Jonathan Haidt looks at in his exploration of the human sense of morality. I was rather chuffed when my answer was chosen as best:

You're not Jonathan Haidt are you? He's asked this exact same question before. On the off chance that you're not Haidt or connected with Haidt's research in any way, I'd say:

There is no logical reason why what you're doing is wrong. Society's taboos on incest are in place for a reason, i.e. the prevention of producing genetically inferior children. In this day and age, rational consenting humans with access to proper contraception can enjoy sex with absolutely no risk of having children and, as such, the taboo on incest in this context is meaningless.

Nevertheless, as the other answers you find here have shown, many people will express great disgust at your suggestion, yet are incapable of justifying their disapproval, indicating that a great majority of people develop a sense of morality largely independent of their capacity for reason, falling back instead on copying the norm of the societies in which they live.

There is, however, one little thing that leads me to oppose this unorthodox relationship with your brother and it is this, crass though it may sound: Love makes fools of us all. Really, it does. It takes one mistake on the part of either you or your brother for you to concieve and that will open up a truly hideous can of worms for you and your brother. As such, though love is nice, and orgasms are nice, I really must recommend you and your brother quit while you're ahead and seek sexual relationships elsewhere.

It only occured to me later that there's another reason not to continue a relationship like this: It's simply not worth the trouble. The reward is a source of orgasms. The price is the social stigma one has to bear, surrounded as we are by shallow, stupid sheeple or, worse yet, fundies. Not quite worth it, I reckon, though perhaps in the long run, it may well give society the jolt it needs every so often to rethink some of the values we hold dear.

Felis Catus ftw!

Here's a little something (author unknown) I found on Textfiles.com that gave me a good laugh:

CAT HAIKU

You never feed me.
Perhaps I'll sleep on your face.
That will sure show you.

You must scratch me there!
Yes, above my tail!
Behold, elevator butt.

The rule for today
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

In deep sleep hear sound
cat vomit hairball somewhere
will find in morning.

Grace personified.
I leap into the window.
I meant to do that.

Blur of motion, then-
silence, me, a paper bag.
What is so funny?

The mighty hunter
Returns with gifts of plump birds-
your foot just squashed one.

You're always typing.
Well, let's see you ignore my
sitting on your hands.

My small cardboard box.
You cannot see me if I
can just hide my head.

Terrible battle.
I fought for hours. Come and see!
What's a 'term paper'?

Small brave carnivores
Kill pine cones and mosquitoes
Fear vacuum cleaner

I want to be close
to you. Can I fit my head
inside your armpit?

Wanna go outside.
Oh, shit! Help! I got outside!
Let me back inside!

Oh no! Big One
has been trapped by newspaper!
Cat to the rescue!

Humans are so strange.
Mine lies still in bed, then screams
My claws are not that sharp.

Cats meow out of angst
"Thumbs! If only we had thumbs!
We could break so much!"

The Big Ones snore now
Every room is dark and cold
Time for "Cup Hockey"

We're almost equals
I purr to show I love you
Want to smell my butt?

An Insult to Reason: Creationists

I've been away from the blog for a while, largely due to the acquisition of a pair of sai (or zai, to be precise) which I've been obsessing over and training with until my arms turned to jelly, rendering me incapable of actually typing at a keyboard for prolonged periods of time. Having recovered the use of my arms, I came across two little things that renewed my interest in the reason I bear the atheist 'A' upon my blog, the first is this video:



Please bear with comrade Thunderf00t's apparent tone of exasperated superciliousness - this is the 27th video in the series and, as this video shows (and I've pointed out somewhere on this blog before) there's no logical limit to the amount of comforting fiction a true religious bigot will fabricate in order to justify his beliefs.

The second is this essay at Talk.Origins which dealt with the exceedingly common Creationist claim: "Evolution is just a theory, so it's not necessarily true."

Now, it was on encountering these two little things that I was harshly reminded of the sheer mind-numbing obscenity of the Creationist stance. No, I really don't think I'm exaggerating here and here's why.

There is, quite literally, more evidence in favour of evolution than one can shake a stick at. There is more documentation on it than you'd find in an audit firm (accountants out there will nod sadly and knowingly at the forests that have died for their profession), fossil evidence to fill natural history museums across continents, it is manifest in every aspect of life from behaviourial science to bacteriological warfare. It is the mighty bastion upon which our understanding of life on earth has come to be based on, yet it is so very fragile, for all it takes is for one little piece of fossil evidence to turn up in the wrong place and time, one aberration outside of the tree of life to send it all crashing down and have biologists scratching their heads for years to come. As yet, that has not happened nor is there any reason to believe it will any time soon.

Evolution IS. Like Mt Everest, it IS. But just as we can know that Mt Everest is, yet not quite know the precise location of every nook and cranny or the number of snowflakes adorning it, there are of course unexplored realms to evolution that are yet to be revealed, minute details that need fleshing out, but the overarching theory holds fast: That living organisms can and will evolve over time, changing minutely to better suit their environments, with the overall effect over many, many generations turning out descendants radically different from the ancestors.

Yet, in the face of these simple truths, the Creationist chooses to reject the physical evidence! The egotism of their God, which really is a proxy for their own egotism, simply doesn't allow the possibility that life could exist without divine intervention. In the sciences, you do get die-hard radicals who defy the prevailing theory and set off on their own path, and as long as their search is ,voluntarily or not, empirically honest and strikes close to the truth, a new truth will reveal itself, and science is stronger for it.

I understand that in France, there is a certain turn of phrase to describe something difficult to digest which translates: "So hard they could choke a Christian." In defense of a fictitious entity, they will do anything, believe anything. The oppurtunistic will churn out any amount of drivel for their flock to swallow, and the flock remain, grunting and and pawing about in the abyssmal darkness of their chosen ignorance, shying away from the light of reason like dwellers in deep caverns who have never seen the sun.

This is the darker half of modern religion. Behind the facade of faith, hope and charity is a world of empty promises, false hopes, exclusivism and wilfully perpetuated ignorance. If you're a believer in human dignity* one may well be inclined to ask why we continue to tolerate this absurd state of affairs any longer.

But, this is not about dignity, it's about the cancer afflicting untold millions of human minds that should know better. It about their delusions impeding scientific progress. It is their flawed logic that leads to a greater number of inferior decisions. It is their blind adoration for a fairy tale wasting insane amounts of time and money better spent on eradicating poverty or researching green technologies.

And it is on this front, this so-called Evolution vs Creation "debate" that the truly delusional make themselves known. Here, clear as day, we see the ridiculous affront to reason that is religion. I for one am offended by the continued existence of religion, especially the Abrahamic ones, and you should be, too.

By the way, note I choose "Creationists" as opposed to "Creationism" in my title. This is because Creationism is simply an idea, a fiction, like unicorns, Optimus Prime or Harry Potter. Fantasies are of great entertainment value. It's the Creationists, those who deny evolution and put forth silly fantasies as truth that are the true insults to human reason.

* I'm not sure I am, actually. Almost all of us came into this world getting pushed screaming out of a punani so I don't quite see what there is to be all dignified about.

Props for good thinking: Hotel in a 747

Here's an idea with some serious win: Take an airplane, no longer airworthy, park it somewhere out of the way and turn it into a hostel...



How cool is that? Almost tempts me to leave the lair and start travelling...

How to win a sword fight

Warning: Facepalm moment.



In case you were in the mood for some prettily choreographed swordplay (I know I was) here's the good bit of Star Wars: Episode I:

Rays of hope! Huzzah!

Just heard about this from Pharyngula. Frankly, I think it's absolutely awesome, and I fervently hope something like it can be pulled off in the US Bible Belt, or even here, in Malaysia. Go infidels!

On a vaguely related note, I just witnessed Rule 34 on Richard Dawkins in South Park.


I know, I'm a bit late, but verily, I am scarred. What did Dawkins have to say?

"I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent."

Honestly, I think South Park does, at times, raise serious points and it certainly did in this episode. That having been said, I'm doubt the good Prof Dawkins is accustomed to seeing the joys of science and reason being packaged together with the likes of, say, Mrs/Mr Garrison...

Malaysian Police: Lower and lower...

Another year, another new low for the underpaid boys in blue. This time, an officer done got his ass kicked by a gang of Mat Rempits. Now, it's not like Mat Rempits are the Malaysian equivalent of Yakuza, Mafia, Bloods, Crips or the like. To say that would be like putting chihuahuas on the same level as Alsatians, pit bulls, dobermans and Rottweilers . There's no nationwide network of organized crime linked to Mat Rempits, they're not the grease in the darkest machinations of Malaysian society, they're just idle, impressionable, misdirected youth on mopeds with a need for speed.

For the sake of argument, let's interpret this in the best possible light for the hapless policeman, that is, let's assume that he was a good cop executing his duty in dispersing what appeared to be a rowdy gathering of Mat Rempits. Assuming this to be so, what does this mean for Malaysian society?

Under ordinary circumstances, the badge alone is enough to allow one man to stand against many. Depending on how any given society's fate has played out, that badge could represent any number of things. To some, it carries with it the promise of severe retribution on opposing the will of the bearer. To others, it is a mark borne by those chosen to inflict the will of their government, for good or ill. To others still, the badge is a symbol of those who give their lives selflessly to maintain the very fragile order that keeps us from falling upon each other like rabid animals.

But whatever the case may be, in most civilized societies, you listen to the man in the uniform wearing a badge. Whether it's because he's armed and you're not, or you have commited some crime against society, or simply because it's what you were taught, you listen. This is normal. The man with the badge is here to keep the peace and uphold the law. That's the ideal, anyway, and, however far away it is from reality, it's an ideal worth pursuing.

But here, something has fallen apart. A policeman ordered some ruffians to disperse, but something went wrong. The badge didn't work and he was just one guy against ten. The badge meant nothing, a line has been crossed. Or not.

Since I started this blog, I've put up quite a few posts detailing the failures of the Malaysian policeman. Not out of spite or anything, but because I felt an integral part of society was not functioning as it should. In my eyes, this incident of a policeman getting thumped by ten hooligans is not a failure on the part of the one policeman. It is merely indicative of how Malaysia's respect for its policemen has well and truly fallen from grace.

How many of us have been pulled over for speeding, to be confronted by a traffic policeman in a shining white uniform, wearing a big badge saying "Saya Anti Rasuah*", whose very first words to you are:

"Bos tak mau tolong ah?"
Trans: Need a little "help"?

If you're Malaysian, and you drive, odds are this has happened to you. And of course, you'd also probably be well aware of the myriad little incidents that have slowly chipped away at their credibility, some of which have been recorded on this blog for posterity**. Seeing as my stomach simply isn't quite strong enough to sift through all of the Star for tales of the antics of the Malaysian police, I'm pretty sure there are many more I haven't recorded.

In this most recent incident, public respect for the police has dropped yet another notch and harsh questions that should have been asked long ago once again come to light. Do Malaysians respect the police? Do they feel any safer for police presence? Is there such thing as a good cop anymore? What does the badge mean? What will it take for the Malaysian police to win back their credibility with the common people? And by the common people I mean the ones who know the current price of bribing one's way out of a speeding ticket is RM50.

I'd like to hope that some effort is being made to restore the policeman to his rightful place in Malaysian society, but from what we've seen so far, I'm not holding my breath.

* Translated: "I'm anti-bribery".

** See here, here and here.

Gaaah, getitawayfromme!!!

Warning: Headfuck. Apparently, this is what passes for children's entertainment:



Fruit salad! And I thought Teletubbies were bad. Here's another one I found more interesting than freaky creepy, based on Mark Twain's Mysterious Stranger, or so the description says:



Somehow, I can't quite reconcile this coming out of the same head that gave us Huck Finn.

Oh, HELL, no...

I've trawled the net far longer than most people I know, and in my virtual wanderings I've gained much insight into the darker depths of human nature, particularly in matters of depravity and ignorance. It's not a pretty sight, but, as with video game violence, there's always the small comfort to be gained from simply turning away from the screen, scratching a purring cat between the ears and telling myself it's ok, it's just one of those rare little things far, far away in another country, where, no doubt, there are moderating influences from skeptics, atheists and other decent people affronted by failures of good sense.

So imagine my horror when I open up today's paper and find this whopping great leap backwards into the realm of stupid. Long story short, PAS' (the Islamist party) candidate for the Kuala Terrengganu by election was selected by the party president's (Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang ) divine inspiration. Not making this up. His exact words:

"I had this dream that we should field (Mohd Abdul) Wahid Endut as the candidate."

"I am confident that he is the right candidate to guarantee us a thumping victory with the blessing from the Almighty."

A dream. That's his "basis". You know what I'm thinking? I'm thinking this is another Patrick Stewart facepalm moment. I'm thinking yet another new low has been reached when a leader of a political party cites "divine inspiration" as his one and only basis for selecting a candidate.
But, on the other hand... That article was in the Star, and, as we've seen from their level of reporting integrity, odds are the PAS prez's words were taken out of context.

Either way, this is not a game that can be won by an atheist voter. On the one hand is BN, a hapless mess of racist, nepotistic and utterly corrupt old men, blithely churning out infantile platitudes while voraciously shovelling taxpayer money into their pockets with their chubby little (and some suspect blood-stained) fingers. And on the other is PR, quietly disintegrating (like Anwar's credibility) and lumped with a component party so ludicrously backward as to take religious scripture as a basis for government.

I swear, the only way to look at all this happening around me and stay sane is to get some popcorn and think of it as entertainment...

The 21st year of Heisei!

... I think. I'm not actually sure if it starts on January 1st. Anyway, Happy New Year to all. Spaceship Earth has gone round the sun once more and we still haven't blown ourselves up and I'm still alive and well enough to be wasting my time writing this blog and you're obviously in sufficiently good health to be wasting your time reading it. Pats on the back all round and thanks for being here.

Anyhoo, I figured now's as good a time as any (though I be recovering from 1 glass too much sangria) to do the New Year's Resolution thing. This blog didn't exist this time last year, so this'll be the first time I'm doing this. I suppose on 1 Jan 2010, I'll rummage around for this post and see how many I've kept. So, here we go:

1. Return to kendo, and don't stop until I'm qualified to wield 2 swords at once. This will take many years...

2. Go to Japan. (Will have to think a bit about coming back.)

3. Finish writing my 1st book.

4. Get back that good physicsy stuff, the good stuff that I was supposed to have with my Physics, MSci, before 3 years in an accounting firm rotted my brain.

5. Teach myself a programming language.

6. Get my chubby arse below 83 kg again.

7. Get good enough at Japanese until I don't need the subtitles when watching NHK.

Right. 7 little things. 365 days to make it happen. Except for #1, but hell, taking the first step's a good start. SO! Best foot forward, dust off the armour, oil the swords, books in hand and into the future, comrades! And here, for no reason at all, is Kotatsuneko: