i don't do too much overheard in boy talk hell. no doubt, as a result of millennia of patriarchal tradition, boy talk hell is kind of just normative generalized small talk, though it may still veer into decidedly men-are-gearhead-nerds-from-mars realms, as with the popular notions of fishing, the barbecue, power tools and spectator sports.
but today in boy talk hell, one party said to another party, "everybody objects to paying their taxes," and, with a pointed pause pregnant with contempt, "except you." (one of the many "everybody . . . but you" statements used by said party to said other in today's boy talk hell), and i had to look (once more) at my little prototype "do not cast your pearls before swine"-sign as i turned to engage...
(aside: my little prototype "do not cast your pearls before swine"-sign, like the notion of the two-dimensional static image of the loosening screw, is difficult for me to visualize in stick figures, so i used words, and have, separately, having tried and failed ("...tried and died"), asked some of my friends, who have, so far, drawn some cute piglets but no swine likely to trample pearls and turn on one and tear one to pieces)
...because, given the conditions of a society organized to preserve and maintain private property and of government, to both of which i more or less object, i'm okay with paying taxes. as long as i'm doing that, i could stand to see a little more government (in the form of providing infrastructure and services, competently regulating those things congress has directed it to regulate, and generally seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed (- and drafted, and enacted, and so on)) from government, more social welfare programs (with fewer, simpler qualifying criteria), and somewhat more . . . circumspection in electing to pursue opportunities for foreign adventurism and to employ the terrifically-expensive force of technological arms.
admittedly it is difficult to imagine, in a world which had never known private property nor government, where i'd be typing this, or contemplating publishing it, (or via the facilitation of what devices drawing upon registered intellectual property) but this owes more to my own ignorance and lack of imagination, i suspect, than to any shortcoming of the philosophy yet revealed.
it is the beginning of a perhaps-interesting discussion among friends.
but in the still, little eddy around which girl talk hell and boy talk hell ever churn, i carefully stopped turning to engage, tucked my pearls under my collar, and turned back to my own assigned mass of someone else's email to studiously read.
i was polled, though, later, and, in my response said what i meant while being understood to say something else. the polling question was "do you believe [insert celebrity] did [insert thing celebrity is alleged to have done]?"
i stated "i do not believe celebrity did thing," because i have never had access to any credible information concerning -- i have no knowledge of -- celebrity, and so do not harbor such a belief. (i have severe epistemological notions) (i also suggested that i was not entirely convinced that celebrity was human at all)
but i was understood to have asserted a belief in celebrity's innocence of thing celebrity is alleged to have done, because normative idle talk understands there to be two options: i believe celebrity (did do / did not do) thing, when, in fact, the question literally poses a different two: i (do/do not) believe celebrity did thing, while suggesting two more: i believe celebrity (did / did not) do thing.
of course, the default option "hey! i ordered a cheeseburger" always remains available.
