Category: *heh*

As I was contemplating the Meaning of the Universe (yeh, I was “on the throne”), it occurred to me that I have read very, very few scenes in the (literally) tens of thousands of books–about 2/3 fiction–I’ve read that deal explicitly with the elimination of feces. Protagonists can go through days, weeks, months, years without once taking a dump.

This is weird. I mean, take a man who loves his wife and enjoys the marriage bed with her greatly. Lock him away from his wife for a week. Plug him up so he can NOT void his bowels for the same week. Now, when released, which is going to be the greater biological imperative? Sex or dumping?

See? It’s easy to trump Freud, the weenie. *heh*

Now, back to fictional representations of the act. There are LOTS (loads, tons, an abundant redundant superfluous excess *heh*) of sex scenes in fictional representation, but a paucity of number 2s. Strange, that. The only fictional representation of dumping that springs readily to mind is from the Michael Douglas (Michael and Douglas Crichton writing as Michael Douglas) book, Dealing or The Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues. Now, admittedly, this ain’t “grate litterchure” but it’s well written and a cracking good, very amusing story–especially for some of us who lived through the 70s mostly conscious (in contrast to many of our acquaintances).

Gotta hand it to “Michael Douglas”. Sure knew how to place things in perspective.

So, if there are any aspiring authors of fiction out there who happen to read this post, please consider including some number 2s in your work. Verisimilitude, dontcha know.

Joe Sobran:

I’ve never understood… why Darwinians are so militant about spreading their faith — wanting it taught to children in public schools, for example, with competing theories banned. Isn’t this the one idea, of all ideas, that ought to be able to take care of itself, without official support and coercion?

Hmmm, Darwinianism is anti-darwinian: can’t survive competition? Apparently that’s what contemporary Darwinians believe. Strange, that.

“Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.” –Milton, “Areopagitica,” 1644

Or, as that 19th century proponent of Classical Liberalism, John Stuart Mill put it in his famous essay, On Liberty,

“[T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

So, why then do Darwinians get their panties in a twist about Intelligent Design (not to be confused or conflated with so-called “Creation Science”–as both disingenuous Darwinians and disingenuous Fundamnmentalists are wont to do–and no, I did not misspell “Fun-damn-mentalists”)? If it’s the bunkum Darwinians say it is, then a lively debate on the merits of both Darwinianism and Intelligent Design would be good for classrooms, since, IF the arguments of Darwinianism hold water, then ID shouldn’t have a chance in a fair fight.

But, as the Sobran quote illustrates, apparently Darwinians’ faith in their theory is not really all that strong…

Just an obseervation: much more often than not, when one voice in an argument seeks to exclude another voice from arguing at all, the one seeking to censor speech often has a weak argument. See: The Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming or the Obama White Cafe-au-lait (Grande, with a twist!) House.

As for me, I’ve always found such hand-waving and shouting down of opponents to be an incentive to dig into their opponents’ arguments to learn WHY such unfair or disingenuous actions are being taken against them.

And as form Darwinianism, that chief exponent of survival of the fittest, “Isn’t this the one idea, of all ideas, that ought to be able to take care of itself, without official support and coercion?”

Hmm, must have a weak argument.

BTW, for some of the “weak links” in Darwinian arguments, see chapter three in “Kicking the Sacred Cow” by James Hogan.