kaazuwulf said:

Was it the compete collection?

The title is "The Call of Cthulhu and Other Dark Tales". Printed in 2009.

Candide is proving brilliant so far. I'm sad that I put off reading this for so long.

I've had no prior experience with Voltaire, no. Candide was my first foray. I'll take your suggestion and run with it later this week. I'm excited to have time to read things again!

Told you you'd appreciate that book.

I'm re-reading The Hobbit at the moment. Even today, it still consumes me in the same way it did when I first read the book when I was 10. Tolkien's writing has always been able to enchant me, and the troll argument once again made me laugh out loud. Few books read so well after three or four times through.

I'm reading Eduardo Galeano's Voices of Time because his writing is gorgeous.

dont make the hobbit movie oh shit......

Reading Sirens of Titan by Kurt V For Vendetta

I dunno. I guess the question is, are you doing it for yourself or for the other person? If it's for the other person, well, good on you.

But then you get into the nasty question of enabling, but I don't think anyone's ever really worked out the morality of that vis a vis BDSM, because if you hurt someone who wants to be hurt then is it really wrong?

I'd say it isn't wrong. Here's the breakdown:

If you aren't comfortable doing it at all, then you're under duress. Duress destroys consent. Thus, it becomes nonconsensual sadistic and expedient violence, which is a whole different category of analysis. I think that you walking away out of a sense of personal discomfort is just as morally justifiable as another man happily indulging that woman's request. In this case, I don't see Vollmann reaching a level of duress. I am happy when I make others so.

As for the "diminished control" point, that falls under the "assuming the risk" heading, as consciously and voluntarily entering into a situation that contains any amount of risk, great or small, is the right of every person. So, happily or unhappily, is the duty to bear the consequences.

Sony_CEO said:

Reading Sirens of Titan by Kurt V For Vendetta

I love that book, although of the Vonnegut canon Breakfast of Champions is my favorite.

Squirrel said:

I walked away from a very good relationship because of a request there was no way I was going to be part of.

Does that make it wrong? Or does that just make it something you aren't into? I don't want to smoke pot but I'm not going to sit here and claim that it's because smoking pot is Objectively Wrong.

The same argument could be presented for assisted suicide.
What are the moral implications?

Squirrel:

"Would the above be considered the same way if she hadn't asked him to?"

That's a different scenario. You could imply consent in certain circumstances, I guess, but generally, I think "biting nipples until they bleed for the purpose of inflicting moderate to serious physical pain" falls outside the normal field of risk one envisions when contemplating intercourse, so just saying "eh, you assumed the risk" would be pushing it a bit. I think when the behavior falls outside reasonable and customary practice for a given activity, then you owe someone a duty before engaging in that behavior. I may regret writing that sentence later.

As a lawyer, I should know the answers to your legal questions. Unfortunately, despite my license, I stay the hell away from practice as much as I can. So, my knowledge of those areas of criminal law consists of dated fragments of law school memories. During that time, I felt it was entirely appropriate to carry around Propel bottles full of vodka. I hesitate to proffer what remains of that experience as substantive answers to your queries, and I apologize sincerely that I can muster nothing better than excuses.

I will say this: consent matters tremendously in a moral context regardless of proof. It matters not at all in a legal context absent proof. Thus, whether a consent argument holds up in court in a given scenario (despite my contracts prof's advice, I do not keep consent forms next to my condoms) doesn't control the judgements that we can make as omniscient moral actors in a hypothetical.

I'm going to have to get Jon to represent me in court after I'm arrested for biting a whore's tits off.

When it's just play, it's cool. When it's someone indulging a damaged psyche, it's not cool.

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I think distinguishing the two should be obvious. If it isn't obvious, talk it out.

I dunno. I just can't see how "A asked for it and B was willing to do it" is something that implies moral wrong.

Now, you can argue that maybe someone was being manipulated, being coerced, was unsure of what exactly was being asked and was too embarrassed to back out. But in the quoted excerpt it seemed like everyone was a willing participant who was enjoying themselves, so...

Just finished Free-Range Kids, How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children (Without Going Nuts with Worry). It's technically a parenting book, but mostly it tells you not to buy into the hype of parenting books. Specifically, don't buy into the fear that a lot of parenting books use to sell themselves. The biggest things Lenore Skenazy has to say about parenting is: be involved with your kids, but A) don't be a helicopter parent and B) don't let your fear ruin your kids.

She cites quite a few studies that help drive home the point that kids who are overprotected are quite often less safe than those who are given chances to make their own mistakes, learn from them, and grow in self-confidence. I can dig it.

Part of the problem is that it assumes that all "safety over freedom" is the result of cowardice. Sometimes it's the result of "somebody got sued over this".

You know why so many "bumper cars" rides now have an island in the center and you're only allowed to go one way? It's because of lawsuits over head-on collisions. (People panic and grab onto the wheel with all their strength, and when there's a head-on collision they get thrown forward and sprain their wrists.)

Sprain their wrists? Wow. What a bunch of fucking pussies.

I just read Cory Doctorow's Little Brother, and it was awesome. I was going to write a sentence like "If you like [insert topic here], then you'll like this book" but you'll probably like this book no matter what.

DON'T WANNA READ THROUGH THIS ENTIRE THREAD TO SEE IF ANYONE MENTIONED IT BUT, UH

The Book Thief is my favorite book. Of all time. Nothing can possibly beat it. (Part of my love to this book goes to the fact that I actually stole this book from a teacher MAKING IT AN ENDLESS LOOP of crazy)

I've been reading John Nichol's The "S" Word". It's awesome.

I just finished Flowers for Algernon, and even though I knew the ending, it was still sad. Still good though.

Ugh, Austen. I have been diligently putting off reading her work since I was an undergrad English major. I'm going to have to do it eventually. Is it really that readable?