I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I am an expert on what is really right and wrong.

The people Al lets do his thinking for him are also self-described experts on what's right and wrong.

I agree with this guy's opinion on what's more evil in this situation, but his argument, if you can even call it that, boils down to "because I said so." I'd think that if his Ph.D. came from somewhere other than a Cracker Jack box, he could do better.

90% of everything is crap, but in my experience the percentage runs a lot higher in philosophy. And I'm saying that as someone who has a great deal of respect for Daniel Dennett.

The primary issue here is not that we need to define stoning women as objectively worse than eating pork, although there a couple of angles to try there and it might be helpful. The primary issue is that we are under no obligation to give up our admittedly subjective opinion for someone else's in the name of fairness. To a great degree we have a successful culture and they have a failed culture. As long as that's true it's their job to convince us using objectivity, not vice versa.

A quote from one of my all time favorite essays by Reginal Bretnor:

"[A great myth is that ] all cultures everywhere are of equal value: all they need is for us to understand them. ... The only trouble with these pretty myths is that they are unadulterated bullshit. ... All cultures are most certainly not of equal value - and the more clearly we understand them, the more obvious that becomes..."

Um, I disagree. Right or wrong is irrelevant. Moral or immoral are merely social constructs in an attempt to keep order. Survival or not is the only criteria for any behavior. The group that grows and survives, well, that group has the "better" behavior. Stoning people was a pretty successful strategy during old testament days. Was it any morally different that it is today?

In the end, the bottom line is whatever group reproduces more and populates the big jungle we live in with their people and their ideas. is the winner. From that perspective, stoning a woman is ok if she's had enough kids, and is done with breastfeeding and all that.

"Right or wrong is irrelevant. Moral or immoral are merely social constructs in an attempt to keep order."

Spoken as truly as can be...by someone who has never had their rights endangered.

I'm all for abstract descriptions and arguments over the purpose of this or that social entity, but to argue morality in terms of "merely" and put human life as a back seat concept to cultural equality is as barbaric as those who are hurling the stones. Somehow I expect chester might have a change of heart if he were on the recieving end.

Chester, you fucked up as hell or what? (And if your answer to that is that you are Muslim, the answer would be yes.)

Given the mess the world is in to the extent that it's endangering all human life due to overpopulation, by your sick, twisted argument we should perhaps stone the breeders instead. After a couple has a kid, stone them so they can't make any more and decrease the surplus population.

Or maybe just guys like Chester to keep him from impregnanting any more. How about all you other gals who can't or won't have any or any more children? I'll throw the first stone.

Just in case anyone's too moronic to figure this out, yes, I'm being sarcastic just trying to point out to Chester how fucked his so-called logic is.

Oh, and yeah, I thought the article was funny and well said.

I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I am an expert on what is really right and wrong.

I could be wrong Shawn but I think he was just trying to be tongue in cheek with this. At least that's how it read to me. A little jab at all the "philosophers" who PC us into stupidly not discriminating against those who would do us in.

Gender is also a social construct, chester. I embrace that reality and support the plights of transgendered, transsexual persons who feel marginalized by a society which is so hell bent on upholding the gender norms.

But if my BF started wearing skirts and lipstick I'd pretty much have to break up with him.

I agree that many social expectations are created to maintain order. Some of these expectations are based on absolute shite. Some of them are not.

Rights are not a social expectation. Rights are inherent to our existence as humans. Humans - being the self-aware and (sometimes) critically thinking species that we are. Stoning a woman for adultery is inherently "wrong" - objective - because the same rules aren't applied to men. These different rules are social constructs which are behaving to create a system of unequal treatment for different members. These members who we've established as being objectively equal because they belong to the human race...

Rarely do I support the idea that "society" can rescind natural rights from humans. Stoning as a punishment isn't the issue (I'd stone a child rapist in a heartbeat...). The issue is unequal treatment of an objectively equal entity. Philosophy REALLY brings out my long windedness...

"Gender is also a social construct, chester." Um, I'm pretty sure that I'll still be a boy if society says I have an inny instead of an outy. So that is not really true. If you take gender to mean the biological kind, gender identity just confuses me.

"Rights are not a social expectation. Rights are inherent to our existence as humans." No they are not inherent to our existence, though required for contentment. Rights by both type and degree are a social construct inherent to a specific society. This does not make the irrelevant though, in fact it makes them very relevant even by your argument (chester) as this is how one defines the group in "group reproduces more and populates the big jungle".

If both genders are stoned for adultery then the society is harsh but fair. There is no reason (moral, ethical or logical) for a gender (biological) to be a deciding factor in punishment.

BTW an ordered society produces far more viable children than a chaotic society. So the constructs you find irrelevant play a part in the survival (success) you refer to.

"Um, I'm pretty sure that I'll still be a boy if society says I have an inny instead of an outy."

Sex is biologically determined. Gender is our outward social expression of our sex. If you grew up in on an island by yourself there is no guarantee you'd automatically like blue...

As far as boys liking trucks and girls liking dolls (w/o having it forced upon them) that's biology. But skirts versus pants....that's gender and society. Kilts are perfectly acceptable for manly ware at one point in time in some places.

Gender identity and sex identity are highly correlated and yet separate. So when I say sex it means penis/vagina; when I say gender it means that it's sexy I'm wearing a knee length dark denim skirt and hot pink wrap top today. The same look would be ridiculous on a guy based on our social expectation of how different SEXES express themselves (GENDER).

If an alien came form another planet, and they were all the same SEX, they'd probably get really confused, too, as to why it's not ok for American dudes to walk around in floral dress...

Gretchen: Fair enough, still boggles my fragile little mind though. The difference are becoming more muted in the US but it's still present.

"as to why it's not ok for American dudes to walk around in floral dress..." Go to the Machine in Boston or manray while it was still around and you'll see that even men in floral dresses isn't always unacceptable. Not particularly enticing to most of us but not fround upon.

Moral or immoral are merely social constructs in an attempt to keep order.

Oh, what an asshat.

It's clear we have evolved morality: cheater detection and reciprocal altruism, as well as a propensity for costly punishing of cheaters (see Fehr and Gachter's work).

All this "social construct" stuff is feminist claptrap that's been shown to be wrong time and time and time again. Boys, even those of the most feminist parents, who will not give him weapons, will nevertheless make weapons out of whatever items they can find. They'll play with transporation items. Girls will pick up dolls. Somebody recently showed this to be true EVEN WITH CHIMPS. (And yes, there are exceptions, but this is, by and large, the rule.)

Culture is an expression of our genes reacting to an environment. Check out the work of Peter Richerson, who's been helping me on the toughest part of the first chapter of my book by sending me studies. With Boyd, he wrote a book I've been using, Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution.

I could be wrong Shawn but I think he was just trying to be tongue in cheek with this.

Hmmm, I just reread it with that in mind and I don't see it. Maybe I'm just tired, but if this is irony, he's no Jonathan Swift.

Gretchen:

But skirts versus pants....that's gender and society. Kilts are perfectly acceptable for manly ware at one point in time in some places.

A kilt is not a skirt. Nobody would accuse someone wearing a kilt of "getting in touch with his feminine side".

Donna:

Given the mess the world is in to the extent that it's endangering all human life due to overpopulation, by your sick, twisted argument we should perhaps stone the breeders instead.

The world is not overpopulated. It's not even near peak carrying capacity. Before you go following that particular meme, be sure you like being associated with the majority of persons and organizations that push it, and why. I'll give you a hint - Paul Ehrlich (author of the fabulously wrong "The Population Bomb") isn't very fond of brown people or Englishmen.

I'm not accusing you of anything, just saying that if you want to avoid being judged by the company you keep, it behooves you to understand the origins of the argument you put forth.

"Stoning a woman for adultery is inherently "wrong" - objective - because the same rules aren't applied to men. These different rules are social constructs which are behaving to create a system of unequal treatment for different members. These members who we've established as being objectively equal because they belong to the human race..."

While I agree with you, there are cultures that do not see women as equal to men. To them, I am guessing that killing a woman who misbehaves is thought of in the same way that our society views putting down an unwanted animal.

We in North America also have "social constructs which are behaving to create a system of unequal treatment for different members".

Just off the top of my head, Affirmative Action and Insurance rates cause unequal treatment for different members based solely on whether you have a penis or a vagina.

While I agree with you, there are cultures that do not see women as equal to men. To them, I am guessing that killing a woman who misbehaves is thought of in the same way that our society views putting down an unwanted animal.

But that's gist of the question Steamer. Does that make them Right, just because they believe that? Belonging to the same species, I believe, makes us equal. Therefore the behaviour that you punish/reward in one sub-group of that species should be the same for all other groups.

This author could certainly use some help in the "concise" department. Much like a winding river, there's lots of scenery along the way down but you're never quite sure where it's going to end up.

Like others, I also picked up on "I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I am an expert on what is really right and wrong." This statement deeply bothers me. For it is people like him who have become the de facto gold plated standard for "Go To Guys" in the media. More often than not, common sense and the blatantly obvious seem to allude them all.

In Mark Steyn's landmark book, America Alone, he deals with this nonsense of Moral Relativism and how it is killing us. It's at the very heart of the drip-drip-drip of Political Correctness that has deeply messed up so much of our society.

With the help of Steyn, Alkon, and others, I'm hoping for a more enlightened time in the decade ahead, where people in the West will stand up and be proud of what their cultures have achieved and realize there is nothing wrong in condemning those more primitive cultures (Yes, I dared to say it!) in the Middle East who have millions of women draped in inverted garbage bags and think there is nothing wrong with raising their children to become suicide bombers.

"But that's gist of the question Steamer. Does that make them Right, just because they believe that? Belonging to the same species, I believe, makes us equal. Therefore the behaviour that you punish/reward in one sub-group of that species should be the same for all other groups."

No, it's not right. I'm just saying that the root of the problem is that they don't see women as equal. Stoning a woman who doesn't behave according to their rules is a manifestation of the problem. If they see the woman as the property of a man, why would he not have the right to do with her as he wishes?

Again, I don't agree. I'm just suggesting that the problem goes deeper than how they treat women. The problem is that this treatment seems justified to them.

" but his argument, if you can even call it that, boils down to "because I said so." ."

Uh, no. One violates another's very right to life. The other violates no one's basic rights. That's what makes the one action "wrong" and the other open to personal interpretation. And that was his argument precisely.

I love it when people call me judgemental. I am. Proudly. Some things are just wrong. What things? Things that violate another's basics rights. Being gay? Hurts no one, so no problem. Murder? Big problem.

"Culture is an expression of our genes reacting to an environment." Then wouldn't society be the environment, thus our reaction to stuff in societal context be a social construct. Right and wrong is a social construct as there are things that would be considered horrid in one social setting that would be acceptable and even required in a different one. The example of military service gives the simplest examples. In a civilized civilian environment killing people is wrong. Killing in war is not only accepted in that society but required.

So if any action is ok in one society and not ok in the other society wouldn't that make it a social construct. Social constructs are not imposed on a society to maintain order but arise from a shared belief structure.

This does not change the fact that certain cultures are inherently evil and should be resisted or even destroyed. Our society is more powerful and can be argued that we are more powerful because we are better, in some way. Otherwise we wouldn't be more powerful.

"Moral or immoral are merely social constructs in an attempt to keep order." Chester

yeah, and? By your law of the jungle interpretation, we won the battle long ago with the sword. Because we continue to have the firepower to back it up, we can impose our will. Because we can do that, Might makes Right, therefore our interpretation is morality.

So our social construct is based on the law of the jungle.

...or something.

Otherwise I am with momof3 and others... There is a large difference between you acting outward to deprive another person of something [like their life] and you feeling something inward about how that other person is acting, if they are not directing anything to you.

'there is nothing wrong in condemning those more primitive cultures (Yes, I dared to say it!) in the Middle East who have millions of women draped in inverted garbage bags and think there is nothing wrong with raising their children to become suicide bombers."

Because of people like you, I cannot go out and find nice American Indian restaurant to eat out in my neighborhood.

Are you honestly arguing that the Western culture needs to be followed everywhere? So that McDonald replaces every single Chinese restaurant?

You cannot possibly kill off entire Muslims. There are billions out there and it is growing. What I would like to see is Miss Hijabs contest in Afghanistan promoted by Americans. So, when finally Muslims outbreed us, they let me enjoy Miss America contest with swimsuit category while they are having the most sexiest Hijabs contest.

Right and wrong as social constructs is very Nietzche, and I'll admit he is one of my favorite philosophers. He's also one of the most misunderstood.

What it boils down to is simply this, ancient times, or even not so ancient, just a few centuries ago, the whole world was more or less barbaric, law of the jungle, live or die stuff for both individuals and even societies. The world has changed in the years between then and now, and we have been able to let go of cultural barbarism and enbrace an enlightened humanist approach that allows human beings to HAVE rights, and because we HAVE RIGHTS, we have a quality AND quantity of life that surpasses anything in any previous era of human history.

That cultural inheritance is what was provided by our forefathers and it is what we hope to pass on to our children. If the only "construct" for right and wrong is the least harm to the fewest number, and the greatest good for the greatest number (where harm is defined as death, disability, misery) and good is defined as (health, long life, and the ability and means to shape the life one wishes for the self), then by that measure we have succeeded tremendously. Whereas the stoning culture is still stuck in the barbarism that is for us centuries in the past. By that judgement measure, their culture is hopelessly behind and not equal in any way.

Chang, how old are you?

> Are you honestly arguing that
> the Western culture needs to
> be followed everywhere?

Modernity can no longer tolerate stowaways from other centuries. If you want the blessings of modern life --education, medicine, transportation, and safe & interesting restaurants-- then you will be expected to conduct your life in a modern fashion.

You have teenagers ironic distrust of McDonald's. I bet if we emptied out your backpack, we'd find some ancient (but still edible) golden french fries mixed in with the pennies, dust clumps, and paper clips.

So that McDonald replaces every single Chinese restaurant?

"I cannot go out and find nice American Indian restaurant to eat out in my neighborhood." That's non sequitor. Native American (Indian is a misnomer if we are being PC) Restaurants do exist and there are several incarnations. First you have reservations where those restaurants can be found. Most mid western cooking has heavy Native American influence. Second Steak and corn (buffalo steak though) can be had at many restaurant in the country. Buffalo beef jerky mixed with or called pemican can be ordered online quite easily. Actually you can get buffalo meat at most super markets now.

I don't have any Russian restaurants even close to where I live. That would be because I don't live in an Ethnic neighborhood and Russian food has not taken off like Indian or Chinese. It has nothing to do with evil bigots just lack of demand.

"Modernity can no longer tolerate stowaways from other centuries. If you want the blessings of modern life --education, medicine, transportation, and safe & interesting restaurants-- then you will be expected to conduct your life in a modern fashion."

Why don't tell the same thing to our Founding Fathers?

The one of the main reason this country is the best nation ever existed in human history is that it allows two senators from the each State regardless of its size. Think about that. The Founding Fathers want to make sure the bigger States do not walk over smaller States, so that they do not become the suicide bomber States to make their points. It is remarkable achievement considering that they were the slave owners. After two hundred years later, we started to think like our Founding Fathers.

While you are preaching the virtue of newest hit of American idol to our Founding Fathers, they will ask you the same question you asked me. Crid, how old are you?

Uh, no. One violates another's very right to life. The other violates no one's basic rights. That's what makes the one action "wrong" and the other open to personal interpretation. And that was his argument precisely.

That may be your argument, but it wasn't his. And neither one of you said why a woman should have more rights than a pig.

Again, I agree with his and your opinion - strongly. I just don't like it when people pretend they are making an objective argument when they aren't. And in this case the snobby argument from authority from someone in a field that's 98% bullshit on a good day rubbed me the wrong way.

Of course if Donna was right, my satire detector was malfunctioning and I need to take that back.

"The one of the main reason this country is the best nation ever existed in human history is that it allows two senators from the each State regardless of its size." Right but then we have the house of reps. The bicameral legislature had more to do with making both the big and small states happy. It was nothing more than a compromise. BTW as far as bigger more powerful states and smaller less powerful states look up "The war of Northern Aggression" in US history.

In some instances compromises are fine. In the case of Islam some compromises are fine and some cross the line in which we filthy half literate heretics stop talking and start shooting. Several examples: Feet washing fine, in fact preferable; calling the great sky father Allah, fine your choice; fasting, go a head. Women are subject to men in everything, no first wrong second it tends to breed stupid men; must submit to Islam or die, want death for Islam you first; etc. There are various degrees of compromise some are ok some are not.

I don't have any Russian restaurants even close to where I live.

I don't have any Canadian or Antarctic restaurants where I live, but I don't consider that a big loss. Besides, I can always just buy a bottle of vodka at the grocery store.

Kidding! Sort of.

I'm in the Ukraine right now and they do have a few dishes or unique flavors here that I really like, such as borsch, kvas, chocolate butter, beet/horseradish sauce and some kind of stewed, smoked pork that's just incredible. On the other hand most of their dishes are either plain or strongly flavored in a way I don't like, i.e. stinky fish. Salo is nothing to write home about.

> Why don't tell the same thing to
> our Founding Fathers?

Because they were the absolute, blessed forefront of modernity. I don't think you get this: The founding fathers were living in an older century. The delivered the goods anyway! In all the history and prehistory of humanity and the cosmos, nobody ever pointed the way as clearly as they did... Whatever their faults. Just about all the richness in your life, and all the safety and comfort and freedom that you take for granted, is happening because those of guys. After steeping in the context of their genius for a few centuries, you seem to think you know a little more about decency than they did. But of course, they'd expect you to.

Teenagers such as yourself (18, I bet) get confused about this sometimes, and it's up to grownups like me (49) to straighten you out. OK, it's not really our responsibility, it's just a lot of fun. If I knew you personally, I'd ridicule your tats, piercings, and spiky hair, too. Also, I don't like your music.

"That may be your argument, but it wasn't his. And neither one of you said why a woman should have more rights than a pig."

I agree. I should probably read the whole thing before passing judgment but he didn't seem to say very much at all in what I read above.

"Teenagers such as yourself (18, I bet) get confused about this sometimes, and it's up to grownups like me (49) to straighten you out. OK, it's not really our responsibility, it's just a lot of fun. If I knew you personally, I'd ridicule your tats, piercings, and spiky hair, too. Also, I don't like your music."

You are hurting my feelings. I am going to tell my mommy on you. MOM!!!!!!

I am going to send what you just said to McCain's office, so he can be prepared to debate with Obama. I am assuming that you are voting for McCain. Otherwise, you will be eating your own words.

Ahh.... the sword is double edged.

Too hip for the room. What are you trying to say?

I think the Founding Fathers had the best path for humanity to follow on a world that doesn't care. What do you think of them?

Also, how old are you?

"Too hip for the room. What are you trying to say?"

Bullshit. You heard me. My English has improved since I hired Marion to be my English tutor.

"I think the Founding Fathers had the best path for humanity to follow on a world that doesn't care. What do you think of them?"

Bull, again. In my book, they are between Jesus and Marx in terms of impact they made to humanity. After the World War II, many nations heavily borrowed from the "Declaration of Independence" to declare the independence from the Allies. If you listen to Ho Chi Minh's speech, he quotes Thomas Jefferson many times, specially, "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." I might add pursuit of happiness, "whatever hell that might be". Their impact is enormous and you are just pissed off because it is being used against you.

"Also, how old are you?"
49 1/2.

> they are between Jesus and Marx
> in terms of impact they made to
> humanity

Very well. We'll call you if we need you. If a big, burly guy from the third string of the community college football team offers to buy beer for you, move cautiously, OK? But have a wacky summer.

Hey Chang,

I've been volunteering my time all day, hauling heavy computer monitors around to give them and refurbished computers to a number of disadvantaged people throughout my community tomorrow.

In the middle of it, I received a call from a good friend of mine at Microsoft in Seattle - a fellow who happens to be Muslim - about some products of theirs that he wants to give to me.

Now I return home to learn from you - apparently the Kumbaya expert on everything - that I am a dreadfully terrible person. And why? Because I happen to have this insane notion that everyone around the world deserves the opportunity to have their voice heard in a democracy and shouldn't fear the threat of imprisonment or even death if they speak out against their government. And even crazier, i actually happen to think that Muslim women deserve to have the same rights as men and not be forced by the threat of violence to wear a large cloak with a tiny eye slit whenever they go out in public.

Wow, what a horrible red neck I am for thinking such things!

Robert

P.S. to Amy: Is there not a way to block your website to mental hospital patients?!

He's not crazy, he's young. That's why it's OK to make fun, he'll grow out of this.

There's some confusion about morality here, but I'm back from holiday (on the Isle of Mull, west coast of Scotland, in a camper van, since you ask) so I'll now clear up the issue.

There is not some super Good and Evil somewhere in the universe. It's a mistake to even capitalize these words. That leads to personification of the concepts and you end with nonsense like "God is Good" and "Satan is Evil" personified. We don't personify other concepts like Bigness or Happiness; we don't think there is an entity that is the Supreme Brownness. I don't yet understand why we single out Good and Evil for this treatment.

I'll just refer to "good" and "bad". What are they? What makes something good? Priests and now PhDs in philosophy have made a comfortable living by complicating this for thousands of years, but it's really very simple. When your mother told you to eat your greens because "they're good for you" you understood perfectly what she meant. And when she saved you from the "bad dog" there was no doubt in your mind about a "bad dog" versus a "good dog." Expressing these in more objective terms is not so easy but it goes along these lines: something is good if it leads to a long, healthy and fecund life; and bad if it doesn't. That's what your mother wanted for you. It's that simple, but as any scientist knows, simple principles can have complex effects, and the same is true here. Here are some of the effects:

#1 is this: "morality is relative." That's because the same act can be good for one person and bad for another. You good and my good may not always coincide.

#2 is this: "morality is uncertain." That's because whether an act is good or bad depends on its long term consequences, and we can't always tell what they will be. There are corollaries of this: #2A: due to natural variation, some people are better able to predict the consequences of acts than others; #2B: people will disagree what the consequences of an act will be; #2C: people who don't have a properly functioning moral system are dangerous and need special care, perhaps in prison.

#3 is this: "morality is objective." That's because the outcome of any act is objective, not subjective. Don't confuse our ignorance, and opinions about the morality of an act, which arise from #2, with the question of objectivity or subjectivity.

This analysis is not a "social construct." All its components are naturalistic and materialist. It is compatible with evolution by natural selection. Genes for morality work by harnessing the animal's intelligence to try to foresee the consequences of its actions, and to choose the "good" ones over the "bad" ones. The better you are at this, the more likely you and your offspring are - by definition - to survive.

The next exercise is to apply this scheme to actual examples.

--Norman (aged 58)

Norman,

I think I once called you a nut job. I would like to take it that back.

What you just wrote is pretty "good". I think you nailed it on the topic.

Thank you.

Robert W.

"P.S. to Amy: Is there not a way to block your website to mental hospital patients?!"

"that I am a dreadfully terrible person. And why? Because I happen to have this insane notion that everyone around the world deserves the opportunity to have their voice heard in a democracy"

Obviously, your democracy does not apply to mental hospital patients. Now, that is "bad". There are a lot of people, who are mentally ill but very productive tax paying citizens.

I don't get it - if stoning people is wrong - why does he suggest stoning the dude at the end?

And he thinks he gets to dictate what is right and wrong? Not to me he doesn't. He is no more an expert of right and wrong than any religous freak out there!! Give me a fucking break...

Uh...it's humor. He doesn't actually mean it.

And his arguments aren't "because the Imaginary Friend said so." His arguments are far more valid than any arguments based on the belief in a big man in the sky there is no evidence exists. I'll copy the relevant passage from his essay in below:

But how would I convince Al that stoning adulteresses is wrong? With a lot of rational argument about individual rights, the history of women-as-property that underlies unequal recognition of claims of females, questions about how he might view things if he were a woman, and so forth.

"natural rights", LOL.

I don't give a shit whose culture is better. But I have a right (thanks to my pistol) not to have yours shoved down my throat.

It would be fun to make Muslim men wear burkas whenever they were around Western women, basically just because us women don't really want to look at them, and to let them know what it feels like. Just for jollies.

Ha! Of course, we don't live in an oppressive totalitarian regime based on primitive religious beliefs, but I love the idea of the switch.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And if you take a gander at these saucy birds you'll want to goose them!

I see a fair number of burka-ed and scarved women (which includes baby girls in strollers!) I guess even the babies have to keep their hair covered because it will drive men crazy! The guys of course are running around in regular Western clothes, wantonly displaying their naked hairy legs and arms, and displaying their hair for the unbridled lust of all women who see them. They also brazenly show their faces to everyone! They are just asking for it!
Just for fun, if they look harmless and I'm sitting across from them on public transit, I look them up and down very slowly in that kind of condescending, 'aren't you a slutty little man', kind of way. It confuses them, and entertains me.