Highly Sensitive Person?

Are you a highly sensitive person?

I am not. Neither am I surprised that some people are more or less sensitive than others. We are a species highly affected by biological diversity and that is one of our strong points. I hope you did not think we are different only on the outside.

Oh, as a classic liberal (US: "libertarian") I believe in every individual's power to do good and the equal value of every individual. Not in each and every situation, because we are all unique individuals with particular learned skills and innate abilities, but every human has some unquantifiable value in common.

That does not mean that every human being is the same though, and it does not mean that all differences must be skin deep and skin deep only. We, as individuals listen in different ways, see in different ways and feel in different ways and once these signals reach our magnificent brains we process information in different ways. We may all be created from a gaussian average mold, but we do not even tend toward a common standard.


The page linked above features a small self test. I consider myself a sensitive person, acutely aware of small sounds, drafts of wind, vibrations through materials et cetera and I am not shy to use all my senses, including the ability to listen remotely via vibrations related through bone structure. Did you know that our skin's sense of "touch" is actually composed of several different senses? One set of receptors trigger on cold beneath 10 centigrade, another triggers on heat above 42 centigrade, while yet another set of receptors responds to pressure, tickling, sharp objects and so on. We don't have five senses - we have at least four times that.

So it is no great surprise that we are also able to detect and interpret these different impressions in different ways depending on what we are as individuals. With so many variables, how could we all be the same? No, enjoy your abilities, and perhaps take tha time to find out what they are. I am certain that you can do something nobody else can. It is certainly a biological certainty.

/ Per

Åke Green cleared

Swedish pentecoastal pastor Åke Green was cleared of charges by the Swedish Supreme Court this morning of November 29, 2005.

Åke Green - also known as Ake Green och Aake Green - held a sermon in the town of Borgholm on the island of Öland in Sweden on July 20th, 2003, for which he was later indicted.

The accusation was that Åke Green's sermon constitutes hate speech against homosexuals. Sweden is in this case bound by its own laws, but has also bound itself to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights. Within the latter, article 9 refers to religious freedoms while article 10 refers to freedom of speech and expression.

I am unsure whether my English-speaking readers have even read the sermon in its entirety in English, so I will attempt to translate it. Not to worry, I am quite proficient in both languages and I have a passion for truth, accuracy and objectivity. The sermon was first transcribed from spoken Swedish, so some colloquial and spoken expressions are present in the original text, which I will also try to translate into appropriate expressions in English. Here goes nothing:

''By legalizing, well, partnerships between men and men and between woman and woman, that will create disasters, quite simply. Unmatched. We see the repercussions of this already. We see it in AIDS, spreading. Now, not everyone infected with AIDS is not homosexual, but it has started because of this once upon a time and then of course innocent people can be infected by this horrible disease without having anything to do with what is behind this, regarding homosexuality.''

''The bible here brings up and educates about these abnormities. And sexual abnormities are a deep cancerous growth on the entire societal body. The Lord knows that sexually deformed people will even rape the animals. Not even the animals go free of the human sexual needs, and the fire that is ignited in a human being. Even that, people can indulge in.''

''Pederasts(1). Even when the bible was written, the Lord knew what would happen. We have been experiencing this and experience it and we are horrified by it. And Paulus speaks in First Corithinthians one and ten about perverted people. And perverted people is a translation from the original which states 'one who lies with boys'. One who lies with boys are perverted people that the bible speaks of. Now I want to emphasize that all homosexuals are not pedophiles. And all homosexuals are not perverse. But you still open the gate to forbidden areas and let sin take root in your mind. And someone who is a pedophile today does not start out as such. No, started simply by changing their social circle. That was how it started. And to be faithful in a homosex relationship is in no way a better relationship than one where you change partners every day. It is not a better relationship. It is just as despicable in the eyes of God.''

''Of my own free will I leave purity and recieve impurity. Consciously they switched, Paulus says. Homosexuality, that is something sick. That is just a healthy and pure thought that has been switched for a tainted thought. Where a healthy heart which has been replaced for a sick heart. That is what they have done. Where a healthy body that has been laid waste to because of a switch, Paulus says... Is homosexuality something you choose, yes. You choose it. You are not born to it. You choose this, quite simply. You exchange it. It is absolutely that way because otherwise it would be treachery against mankind.''(2)


(1) Here Green uses an outdated term - "gosseskändare" - where the victim is a male child - "gosse" - and the action is said to be a desecration - "skändning". One who desecrates something is therefore a "-skändare", and that's the entire word. The choice of using such an old word is not related to any known Swedish bible translations.

(2) It is unclear whose this treachery would be, but as I do not have a continuation of this quite, I would suggest that if homosexuality is not a choice, then mankind has been betrayed by its creator.


The above quote is not the entire sermon, but it is the portion quoted in the case documents. The court has taken all this into consideration, along with the context in which it was spoken, what the apparent objective of the sermon was, and what the relevant Swedish and European articles state on the matter.

I cannot translate the entire 16-page document explaining the motivations behind the court's decision, it is just too much and too boring. Perhaps another time. However, I can outline the arguments:


No special consideration is taken to how the speech was delivered. There is no particular protection for holding a sermon from the pulpit compared to singing a song or handing out a pamplet.

Consideration was taken to Green's defense that he was paraphrasing religious text and that this is part of religious freedom.

The court acknowledges that the definition of hate speech does not change with religious context, but that special care must be taken to the possible effects of a conviction on religious freedom. In other words, while it is important to represent the letter of the law, the effects of the law must not be such that following one law constitutes a breach of another - as in acting prohibively on the freedom of religion.

No consideration was taken to whether or not Åke Green's religious convictions, arguments or source material were legitimate. It is understandable that a court cannot make legitimacy judgements on the religious beliefs of a defendant, but this also means that anyone can claim religious affiliation, and recieve the more careful judgement considerations mentioned in the previous paragraph.



Personally, I think Åke Green would have been convicted if he had not been a reverend, if he had been a plain heterosexual old man working in mechanics, speaking in a room full of colleagues.

And personally, I think that means some animals are more equal than others.


/ Per

I love dentists

While I do not love the sound of the drill, I love the fact that you can bring a mouthful of bad teeth to a specialist and have them replaced with cybernetic super-teeth that will not grow old or break. Why am I not allowed to buy spare arms and legs like the handicapped, or eyeglasses that improve my 20/20 eyesight? It is just not fair.

Luckily, I have had some bad teeth and so have been offered to pay a lot of money to get new ones. It is just so cool.

I learned two things at the dentist today. I like to ask him questions while he works, or before he works. Mostly before he works, to procrastinate the whole hole-drilling session a little more, and also to show off how smart I am.

Last time I assumed that the designation "4-7" must mean fourth quadrant, seventh tooth from center, and I was right. Apparently dentists switch these designations around every now and then, so there is progress or something. Imagine your mouth from the front, imagine an analogue clock in front of it, centered on your tongue, and anything between 12 and 3 is the first quadrant, 3 to 6 is the second, 6 to 9 is the third and 9 to 12 is the fourth quadrant. So your four front teeth are 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4, clockwise from the top, according to that scheme. I like it. I do not suppose your dentists use the same scheme - I would be surprised if they did.

But that was something I surmised and was confirmed on last time. This time, I asked him why the hell it hurts to drill in the dead enamel.

"It's the cold", he says. "You see, root nerves aren't as particular as our skin. Our skin tells the difference between blunt and sharp pressure, heat and cold and more", he continues, "but whenever a dental nerve recieves a signal, it registers as pain, regardless of what the sensation would be on any other body part".

Once I had heard that and understood it, my first reaction was "Why not heat the drill then?", but I never asked. There must be many reasons why you cannot heat a drill between uses. For one thing, the bacterial flora of the human maw would be overjoyed to have some 37 centigrade to frolic in, rather than a cool steely 15C. For another, maybe the material would be softer, less efficient, weaker. And, I suppose, it would be a minor engineering problem to build a drill that both rotates and heats the drill bit at the same time. Most drill bits would need cooling to prevent friction overheating, not the other way around.


So that was the first thing. The second thing I forget.



/ Per

Hi, welcome, first post.

This is really only a filler for what may come, a "lorem ipsum" for my style sheet experiments, and a placeholder rather than actual content about stuff I care about. Today I am too upset to really start anything meaningful, but a rant or two might work.

Pro primo,

A Religious Nutter on a local forum claims that rape and assault statistics rise in step with how many people are out and about, drinking and dancing, enjoying themselves. He does not exactly put it in these words, but that is what he means. Have we heard this before? In Sweden, during the beginning of the last century, accordions were accused of leading the youth into temptation. Somewhat later, dancing establishments were accused of the same, and at that time we are not talking about discoteques, we're talking about wooden plank floors and a tent-like temporary roof, a few fiddlers, accordion and a bass player. Why? Because dancing is sinful, what more reason do you need?

So this Religious Nutter was brought up during that time, and brought up harshly. What does this man do today? Has he rebelled against his constricting upbringing? Has he had a personal revelation and found his own way? Has he found ways to fight violence, injustice and sexual repression throughout the world? I am sure he thinks so. I do not agree.

Why is it that we blame the victim?

Oh yes, I have heard all excuses already. The victim really needs to think about what they are doing, you see. Why was the victim even at the scene of the crime? Should the victim not have known that the assailant has been known to have had friends who move in criminal circles? Should the victim not have dressed more casually? Why did the victim even go to an establishment of drinking and dancing if the victim did not expect, nay, seek out this exact sort of punishment which does or should befall any hapless victim who go to such establishments?

I am ranting, of course. My beliefs are that we, the society, must work to restrict the effect of violent and abusive individuals on the whole. By "the whole", I mean society. If violence reigns unchecked, and it is the common man and woman who must consider the possibility of violence around every corner, the result is not a free society. This is the very reason why most democratic nations criminalize the persecution of minorities, even when it takes on rather ethereal forms such as defamation and slander of abstract "groups", because if we cannot feel free, we will act as if we are not free. If we risk violence for speaking our minds, we are not free to speak. If we risk violence for going out for a drink, we are not free to go. If we risk being raped for dressing how we want to dress, we are not free to choose our own clothes.

And that, my dear curious readers, is not freedom.


/ Per