Freethinker's corner

Coexist? … May 4, 2015

2015/05/03

     Maybe you have seen those bumper stickers proclaiming “coexist”. The people displaying these bumper stickers are expressing the desire that all religions live in cooperation and peace. The majority of religions teach that they are the only path to heaven. Some proclaim that non-believers are heretics, even those that believe in other religions are thought of as infidels or worse. Islam asserts that all must believe… or die.

     Idealistic ideas held by naive people being introduced into the public arena can cause dangerous outcomes. To convince people to relax in the face of those who have a belief, not only in their superiority, but the superiority of their god, could cause many deaths. You cannot love that which hates you. You cannot negotiate with those who are sure their way is the way.

     For religion diplomacy means that you concede to their demands. Meaningful progress in negotiations to the believer means that you are closer to doing as they desire. Concessions work only in their favor or they do not work. Many a war has broken out amidst peace negotiations.

     The human species is not ready for coexistence, not while there are so many of us still dealing in “black and white with no shades of gray” religious belief. The inflexibility of such beliefs can only lead to conflict. A people who believe so strongly in their religion that they would advocate Armageddon as a means of bringing the end times are simply too dangerous to deal with. A strong deterrent force is the only answer to such a threat.

     What we can do now is work steadily towards a secular society. Through education we must change the character of society. As long as people believe there is a life after this one, the value of this life will be diminished. Those living in squalor will be more susceptible to the desire for a better life. Religions that offer such a life will always have adherents among those that have little else. The standard of living must be raised worldwide to release the grip such religions have on humans. We must do this carefully making sure not to lower one peoples’ standards while raising another to avoid the development of resentment.
A Misanthrope’s Rant …. April 27, 2015

2015/04/26

The stereotypical man is usually perceived as the protector, the courageous defender, the provider. As a result of the way society treats its males, this model, this stereotype, has become obsolete.

There is a definite anti-male slant in Western society. The laws, the courts, and public opinion of men as a whole has degraded. To be clear… men have not necessarily degraded, just the perception of what men are has degraded.

Feminism over the last fifty years has convinced the public that men are rapists, murderers, slouches, and in general no-good rotten scum. The only way for a man to be considered a hero these days is to be maimed or killed in the effort. Otherwise… it is just expected. A fireman can carry out an entire elementary class from a burning fire… but unless he is maimed or dies in the effort… it is but a day’s work. A policeman can save a dozen pedestrians from certain doom… but again… unless he ends up a mess on the floor… he’s just done his job. Who’s the hero to the feminists in these cases? The woman who called the fire department or police.

Business as usual for me is over. Yes, I will protect me and mine, but you and yours can drown, be shot, fall eighteen stories, expire from spontaneous combustion, impel yourself on a spike, leap in front of a speeding train, and I will simply stand and watch … if I have the time.

You and yours will be safe from me. But the lady having her purse snatched better not look my way asking me to give chase. The boy/girl getting beat up by punks better make his/her peace. I won’t do you any harm… but I won’t do you any favors either. I just don’t care any more and it’s your fault with your gynocentric societal slant. When society begins once again to appreciate the efforts of men I will change, perhaps, but I won’t be holding my breath.

NOW GO AWAY!
Abortion Revisited… April 20, 2015

2015/04/19

Back in January I wrote about my world vision asking the reader if they were possibly in agreement and therefore compatible.

Here is what I wrote:

I feel very strongly that abortion should be available as a safe and legal surgical procedure. It should be used sparingly for well-defined reasons…
1. Rape. No woman should be forced to birth a rapist’s offspring.
2. Deformation. Why condemn a person to a life horribly deformed.
3. Mother’s health. If it is clear that allowing a pregnancy to come to term will endanger a woman’s life then the pregnancy should be terminated.
4. Incest.
•Abortion should never be used as a form of contraceptive.
•There are incidences where putting a child up for adoption would be a better route than termination.

Now I will elaborate upon this segment of my past post.

1. Rape. No woman should be forced to birth a rapist’s offspring.

► Life is precious. On that you will not get an argument from me. Even if we find that the Universe is filled with life, each life is precious.

The question I would ask is: Should a rapist be rewarded by allowing his genetic line to continue? Wouldn’t this encourage more such activity by those driven by the basic instinct to procreate and pass along genes?

If you were the recipient of this material would you want to be responsible for rewarding the rapist?

Would it not be better to eliminate the seed of those that do such deeds from the gene pool? If found guilty (after due process) his baby should not be permitted to come to being and he should have his ability to procreate eliminated.

Let’s consider also in this direction the growing numbers of false accusations made to destroy reputations and careers of men. Before we condemn a man the charge should be investigated and either found true or not true. If true, then follow due process. If not true, then the woman making the accusation should suffer the penalties that the man would have suffered had he been found guilty, after due process, of course.

I emphasize due process as too many falsely accused men have had their reputations and careers irreparably destroyed. Even upon found innocent his life is over.

2. Deformation. Why condemn a person to a life horribly deformed?

There are many deformations experienced among the multitudes of births worldwide. Some, I think, are sufficient to warrant termination of the fetus. If the defect is not discovered in time then the baby must be cared for yet, if it is incapable of sustaining life with only the normal attentions a mother would provide, then perhaps it should be allowed to expire. If it is a defect that can be repaired… fine. If it is discovered that the defect is faulty genetics, perhaps sterilization at birth is not a radical consideration, but one made in compassion for future generations. Certainly most would agree that a baby born without that part of the brain that makes us human would be an extreme burden upon the public as far as resources, medical care, etc. A child born with a major defect that could be passed on to future generations would be a drag upon the improvement and survival of humanity, unless sterilized.

What kind of deformations? That is something we as a society need to determine: which ones to allow to proceed, which ones should be terminated for the good of society.

What is life without quality of life?

3. Mother’s health. If it is clear that allowing a pregnancy to come to term will endanger a woman’s life then the pregnancy should be terminated.

If the mother is conscious she should be given the choice of risking death or aborting the fetus. If there is no chance of the fetus surviving, the mother should be informed of this. Again, her choice, but I cannot imagine a woman possessing reason and having been told of the inevitable would still remain adamant in carrying to term.

If the mother is unconscious and no prior instructions have been given then I believe the doctor involved should be enabled to make the decision for terminating the fetus and saving the woman’s life. This decision should be made invulnerable to any litigation by any party at a later date.

4. Incest.

There is a reason incest has been a taboo in modern cultures, at least since Biblical times. It was noted that the product of a union between a man and woman that were too closely related often had abnormalities, deformations, in frequencies greater than the population as a whole. In most modern societies procreation between family members was made illegal… illegal for the good of humanity so as to minimize the genetic errors. Relatives as far as first cousins are usually forbidden as mates. Was this not Darwin’s mistake with his offspring?

• Abortion should never be used as a form of contraceptive.

I have heard of reports of individual women that seem to use abortion as a means of contraception. They engage in numerous unprotected encounters and then when a pregnancy occurs they obtain an abortion. Abortion should never be used as a form of contraception. Repeated abortions surely cannot be safe for the woman. Usually those that operate this way are poor… and society cannot afford to pay for these repeated abortions. It would be better if society provided contraception free rather than paid for these repeated surgical procedures. Sex education should be mandated in schools. This does not mean that people be taught how to do it, necessarily, but instead, taught how not to become pregnant. I certainly do not want porn taught in schools and that is not what I am suggesting.

• There are incidences where putting a child up for adoption would be a better route than termination.

Due to religious beliefs some may decide to carry to term even those children that are conceived while the mother and father are still adolescents. Consensual unions of this sort occur all the time, many because of naivety. In these cases perhaps, to allow the “children” to grow up before becoming parents, adopting out the child should be a consideration. These incidents would not, in my humble opinion, include pregnancies conceived by incest or rape. Both those types of incidents are illegal and should not be rewarded by the passing on of genetic lines.

I include both male and female rape in this. A child conceived by a woman who has raped a young boy should be terminated. I define rape in this case as being any male under the legal age being engaged sexually by an adult female. They cannot consent to a female who is not mutually underage. She is the adult and must be held accountable. No matter what, if somehow the baby is born, the young male should in no way be held responsible financially… the deed was totally hers to commit.

◘ Next I will elaborate upon Euthanasia, and why we sorely need this choice.
Free Speech has Consequences… (for immediate posting)

2015/04/14

I have written upon this topic before. Actually, these two topics before. Feminism and free speech. I think supporters of feminism need to be shunned. On the other hand I support free speech. Everyone should realize that free speech carries consequences. I will shun supporters of feminism, but agree that they have the right to speak in favor of it… just not to me. Comments supporting it will not be permitted to stand unassailed… they shall be deleted, and the authors listed and shunned henceforth.
Objective Morality … April 13, 2015

2015/04/12

Many liberals as well as Conservatives have asserted that Islamic countries mistreat their women and also that they enforce a style of justice that is barbaric. Conservatives believe in a god for the most part. Their god provides for them a basis from which they feel morally obligated to tell Islamic countries that they should not do what they do. Theirs is an objective morality.

Liberals have for the most part no such god, no such basis, and have subjective morality. Their morality is not absolute, and therefore can be classified as relative. Morality is based on the culture, or it cannot be relative. Therefore, liberals have no basis from which to argue that an Islamic regime, no matter what they do, is immoral. After all, the Islamic regime is operating from absolutes, from objective morality issued by their god.

There are those among the thoughtful, the freethinking society, that have considered there might indeed be some objective morals, non-relative, that should apply to all… not issued by any deity. I am among those who consider this. Of course there are those who deny this and say that everything that comes from the human mind is subjective. However, I think subjective is what applies to specific cultures, while objective applies to the entirety of our species.

Atheists have been repetitively condemned for having a relative subjective morality. They have been accused of being a lecherous lot, a community where everything goes. Stiff-lipped Christians have so proclaimed it.

Yet, murder is just as repugnant to atheists as it is to Christians. Beheading is just as barbaric to one as the other. Harming someone without cause just as objectionable to both. Stealing is looked down upon by believer and heathen alike. Might there be some morals more encompassing? Might there be wrongs that are wrong to everybody? Could these be the objective morals?

There are many definitions of objective. Ignoring the one that proclaims objective things exist outside the mind and embracing the definition where that objective thing is instead based on facts, not feelings or opinions, may we have leave to say we may have identified objective morality?

We can, I do say it, despite the ravings of the few that will object. Barbaric treatment is barbaric no matter where it happens. Even in those countries where it is exercised there are many that deplore it. Without objective morality you can but look on and clench your fist and grind your teeth… shut your mouth. Recognizing that there are indeed non-religion based objective morals gives one the platform from which to shout “Hey you, that’s wrong!” If you proclaim morality relative all you can do is hope the dentist bill is not too high as your teeth grind in your head. Of course you can shout anyway, but you have no foundation for your proclamations. The Imams can just turn to you and with a sneer shout back “You eat pig you infidel”.

What are these objective, non-religious based, objective morals? Well, not to harm others seems likely. Some say that “Whatever promotes human flourishing and survival is good. Whatever doesn’t promote human flourishing and survival is bad.” I don’t know about that, humans could reason that this group of people must die for humans overall to survive. You know, the old for the good of the many the few must go. Perhaps we might refine this somehow into asserting that at least one objective moral might be that of maximizing the well-being of a conscious creature. A sort of maximizing of empathy and compassion. Of course evil can then be said to be lack of same.

Eventually we must conclude, if all things go well and education of our children continues, god will soon be gone. If civilization is to continue then there must be an establishment of an objective morality. I have heard it said that our laws are objective. Yet, so many flout the laws. There has to be a seed planted to replace the deceptive seed of religion. Something that will stand just as well for the adult possessing skepticism as for the child. Repetitious teaching cannot, I think, be avoided for the child. I don’t think we need feel guilty for instilling sound morals in our youth despite the fact that they cannot yet grasp the need. What is important is that the morals stand firm when faced by reason, which religious morality cannot. Let’s just be sure that the morals programmed into youth are sound and reasoned rather than manipulative.
The Human Species is a Disgrace … April 6, 2015

2015/04/05

The fact that the human species is a disgrace is not debatable. There are many facets to this issue. It is why the human species is a disgrace, not if.

Of all the species on this world, humans are the most advanced intellectually. They can ponder, consider, decide a course of action. They have the ability to look at issues from the other side and to express empathy. When they hurt others, the others being other humans or other species, they know they are hurting them. If that hurt is carried out needlessly, then that hurt becomes malice. When malice is intentionally manifest it is a misuse of empathy. You are hurting someone intentionally because you know it hurts.

It has been said that the failure to take action can be thought of as bad as actually harming someone. You see a man in the street. Dirty, disheveled, and hungry; it is obvious he has been there for a while. His reasons for being there are irrelevant. The fact that he is there means that society has failed him. The much vaunted human capacity for empathy has either failed or people that look upon this man are satisfied that he is in such horrible conditions. They know he is in bad straights and parade their own “well-off” state as evidence that they are superior. A misuse of empathetic power, I posture.

The human species, because it had the capacity to understand the state of fellow humans was able to act together and survive against physically superior foes. It was this quality of empathy that provided the glue that held us together. The individual human was no match for the saber tooth, the wolves, and other hosts of forces capable of destroying him.

Our empathy has failed us much. It has been used as a means to determine how to harm, too often. Human failures include rigid religions, barbaric laws, war, violence, starvation, and arrogance. The list of failures is much longer and the length of this list grows each time something that could have provided positive improvement is turned instead to some harmful and destructive course.

How could a caring human species carry out atrocities culminating in the deaths of thousands, if not millions? Just how did a bomb manage to be produced that could annihilate an entire city? Such a force was meant for better use. It was predicted that this force would provide electricity so cheap that it need not be metered. What happened? Was it greed? Was it miscalculation? Was it beyond our grasp?

When the bomb was first proposed it was conjectured by some that it would ignite the atmosphere and end this world. The fools went ahead anyway. The struggle for the doomsday machine was relentless. The conjectured ignition proved inaccurate and led to the desire for even more powerful explosive force. The race went on to such a level that when all was said and done, all existence was in peril.

The first world war was to end all wars. Then came WWII, surely it would be the last. Numerous wars have raged since and no end is in sight. Death and destruction is rampant everywhere. So many factions no way to diplomatically sway those determined to enforce their own perspective upon all other peoples. Turmoil.

Justification enough for the eventual rise of misanthropes like myself I should say. More later…
It’s the Bomb! … March 30, 2015

2015/03/29

How does one stop the unstoppable? Worse than a leaky ceiling, how Do you stop something that has the mind to thwart you?

I have contemplated this before: The unstoppable juggernaut that is the human population bomb. It carries so many ills for humankind. The fact that our doom may occur due to it makes us seem so much like bacteria undergoing unchecked growth, or a virus, multiplying and destroying its host.

Unfortunately, it is not just our own existence that is imperiled. There are numerous species that we have destroyed and are destroying. Extinctions are occurring most rapid. Everyone cries out that something must be done. They see the end result approaching. But cries do nothing to abate the rapidity of human population growth. Everyone proceeds with business as usual, not realizing that business as usual is the problem.

The best scenario would be for humankind to refrain and produce only replacements. Religious folk will have nothing to do with that insisting instead that their god has commanded them to go forth and multiply. Shunning contraceptives and other means to limit families, these ignorant folk make large families… many of which the public at large must provide support. Support by subsidies direct or tax abatements indirect, these families cannot subsist without it.

Meanwhile, the aforementioned species decline in numbers, some beyond retrieval. In the end the best hope for many remain the Zoological gardens present in many large cities. These same zoos, as they are called, scorned by many naturalists, are like sanctuaries. The naturalists think all these wild animals should remain wild, in the wild, not realizing that consigns many to extinction. Year after year we hear of Gorillas being poached, their hands removed. Elephants treacherously downed, their ivory tusks cruelly hacked away. Large cats taken, for trophy, for wasteful sport, some for their genitalia thought aphrodisiac in quality. Sorry folks, we aren’t growing any more wild out there. Encroachment seems inevitable everywhere. By everywhere, we have to admit, that means our planet’s oceans too. Species there suffer as fishing goes unabated. Large trawlers with enormous nets engulfing entire schools of fish. Their absence not only affects those of its kind but many others that depend upon their presence. Even here, the need for preserving at least some representatives in aquariums is seen necessary and unavoidable.

Although the entertainment available in Zoological Gardens is a plus, to bring the experience of what was, to an ignorant public… that is not the reason I support the zoo. I support the zoo because it may be the last refuge for many species. Without a doubt, this is not a solution. At most it will help many species linger just a short while longer. In the wild I see no hope for them. This is because of human nature. No one is of one mind. One human wants a new home there, in the woods. another wants the woods preserved. At this point I only see the first human winning out. New building in wild areas must be banned. If you want to have a forest that is how it must be. We can’t keep hacking away even a little year after year without at some point destroying it all. The population growth must be stopped, indeed, a little less population is what is needed.

Is anyone ever going to listen?
What is Normal? … March 23, 2015

2015/03/22

Whenever you posit that humanity is in trouble because the number of normal people who pull the load of society is diminished there is always that excessively liberal person that crawls out of the woodwork and exclaims “What is normal?”

Although it would be easy for me to list those people whom I think are abnormal and dangerous to society, there will always be those who think so and so should not be on that list, or that they themselves should be thought of as normal… when it is obvious they are not.

In my opinion, the nuclear family, that is, a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children, is normal. Any family structured any other way is not normal. You can’t have two fathers and children, or two mothers and children and be designated normal. You just can’t. Protest all you want, you just can’t.

The nuclear family has been the strength of the United States. This was the foundation of our nation. Our nation has lost strength and world prestige in direct proportion to the deterioration of the nuclear family. When that proportion of the population that is traditional nuclear family declines below a critical level, and I do not pretend to know what that level is, the nation will fall. Structure, in manufacturing, in civil society, will crumble and fall into disarray… chaos and misery will follow. The only reason we remain today is that there are still enough traditional families teaching their children in the right way to go.

You see evidence all around you of the increasing decay of society. An increased desire and an increased use of “recreational” drugs. More interest in the dark areas of humanity like pornography, loose sex, and perversions. More and more people who depend upon public handouts rather than a day’s work.

You see men and women no longer sure of who they are, so they try to be something they are not. Men try to transform themselves into women, women, into men. It is a stomach turning thing to behold. Yet, the moment you cry out against it there are those people, already influenced by it, that staunchly stand up and shout “who the hell are you to tell us how we have to be”, so the acceleration into decadence continues.

I am an atheist. I have not dispensed with morality. My morality was here long before my excursions into Christianity. My morals remain now, even after my discarding of faith. My simple hope now is this, and perhaps it is a greedy hope, and that is, that civilization lasts at least long enough so that I will live to old age and die before society becomes so sickening that even a demon would convulse upon seeing it.
The Cost of Being Correct … March 16, 2015

2015/03/15

So, you are sitting there… you know that so and so is a violation of the Constitution of the United States, but… how is this violation going to be corrected? You look around in your apartment. Nope, no bags of money lying about. You check your most recent statement from the bank. Nope, just barely enough to get by till your next paycheck. There you sit, aware of a blatant constitutional violation, but you are broke.

You must sue. To correct a malady, an infraction, an error, you must sue. You, have to hire a lawyer, you, must come up with the cash. Why… if you didn’t know better you would think that our judicial system was set up solely for the rich.

This is no doubt not the biggest flaw in the American system, but it’s a big one. Not only is your health dependent on how much money you have, but so is justice. As I recall, the rich have that money thing cornered.

The rich can buy the best lawyer, or at least the best performing, which is what seems to matter. Justice, after all, should be cut and dried, but many a slick lawyer has proven, it isn’t.

Oh, and the juries, the juries that listen to all this stuff. Supposedly representing myriad perspectives, it’s those perspectives that sometimes can be utilized by a slick lawyer to bring a case to a conclusion a distinct distance from anyplace called justice. Even if the lawyer doesn’t play to those views, the outcome of the case can be flawed due to them. Cut and dried, right or wrong, legal or illegal, doesn’t really have a chance here either. A jury of your peers… really quite impossible. Such peers, one might think, would also skew the case and render you a positive outcome that wasn’t deserved. I wonder how many juries have been bribed?

Shouldn’t justice be free? Shouldn’t the common man be able to point at the Constitution and demand a wrong be righted? Instead, what matters, is who has the most cash to spend.

What if Mrs. McCollum did not receive financial backing for her quest in 1948? Would we all now be kneeling and praying in our schools? She won, but what if…
Boogeyman… March 9, 2015

2015/03/08

The boogeyman, that nasty creature lurking under your bed, in your closet, or forever in the recesses of your mind. Something out to get you. People conspiring to put an end to your existence by one means or another. Nature itself rearing up as if somehow endowed with intelligence, a malevolent presence bent on your demise.

Conspiracy nuts abound. Never satisfied with the status quo, these people are constantly at work developing new fears, new worries, to make you afraid, very afraid. From big business to big government to the extraterrestrial, there are entities out to eliminate your existence or enslave your mind and body.

Unable to accept that Islamic terrorists were capable of bringing down two buildings in New York using gigantic airliners these conspiracy inventors, fabricators, would rather believe, and have you do likewise, that it was all a government plot. That men lurking within the government decided it was time to kill 3000 Americans just to persuade us Islam was out to get us. Rather than actually believe that terrorists, under the cloak of Islam, really were out to get us, they would have us believe it is the government, our very own, plotting against us.

This conspiracy is just the latest one. Throughout time there have been people pointing fingers in the dark at boogeymen. There have always been individuals who create undue fear through lies. The McCarthy era should have taught us to be more careful before we point the finger. People never learn. For each new bandwagon of alarm there are many boarders. No one, it seems, has developed the habit of stepping back and saying “Now, hold on a second.”