So I have been sent this link about how there are defiantly nuclear weapons within our boarders. Honestly I cant say I'm the least bit surprised. Now far be it from me to get political (bit of Ole' tongue in cheek humor there folks, calm down) but it is nothing new that we are experiencing. The Muslims have hated anyone who is not Muslim for a very long time. As a matter of fact it is not bigotry to say that Muslims want to kill "us", us of course being anyone who is not Muslim. See the fact of the matter is that their own scripture tells them to convert the entire world in one of three ways. Those ways would be by choice, by torture, or death. That's not taken out of context, that isn't misconstrued to give a false impression. The cold hard fact that Americans cant or wont understand, is that Muslims want to kill all non Muslims. Unfortunately for us, it doesn't take a belief in something for it to be true.
Its that last part that perfectly sums up the second reason why this is so fantastically believable, and that would be the modern democrat. Lets cut through the chase and call it what it is. In an effort to be Marxist, a claim virtually all Dem's would deny but there really isn't much defense against it, they are seeking to remove all that is not equal in an effort to create peace. It is in this vein of thought that we are told by a largely leftist media that there is no such thing as terrorists. We are told that Muslims don't want to kill us, and that AL qaida is just misunderstood. I love that last one, misunderstood. That has been used to cover just about anything Dem's/leftists/Marxists cant actually explain away by calling someone a bigot/racist/prejudiced. Take for instance Muslim terrorists. They believe they have been commanded to kill all non Muslims, that if they die in the service of doing this that they are reserved a higher place in heaven, and that any means are acceptable. This is a paraphrasing of their own teachings, not some quote from an anti Muslim hate group. Why would anyone for one second believe this was not a threat?
Dem's are literally unable to see this. See they are basically stuck in high school. How many times have you heard that the "world" doesn't like us, and that's why Muslims are bombing us. Let me rephrase that a bit, the other kids don't like us, and that's why they pick on us... if we just made friends with the mad jihadists then they would put down their knives, forget their cultural convictions of genocide, and we could have tea and crumpets. Some how I don't quite buy that story. Not only are Muslims bombing virtually everyone they can get their hands on, but in this world that hates us, countries keep electing pro American/pro bush governments. The rest of the world has already tossed off Communism, and they are now tossing off socialism as well.
Well this is my take on this story, I wasn't the least bit surprised. Perhaps if the jihadists nuke California and new york not only will we have a clean election, but the people standing in the way of reason who are destroying the traditions this country was built upon will no longer exist in great numbers. Now I'm not one to wish for the death of people, however if those same people insist on being a destructive force in our world, then I say cut out the cancer. Just so nothing is not understood, I lump both Muslims who want the world turned Muslim (which is all proper Muslims mind you) and those who would seek to do nothing but sing kum ba ya with marshmallows on a stick as a means of preventing this conversion as a cancer on this world. Destroy the ideology, and if that means destroying the people, than so be it. This is not "making us as bad as the enemy" as the saying goes, it is a retaliation and a defensive measure to prevent insane ideologues from having control over anything.
Again, I'm not surprised. As has been stated its going to take a few more 9-11's before people wake up. I can only hope my loved ones are not caught in the blast when the inevitable happens.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
violation of freedom of religion
OK this will be a short one as its getting late and its such a clear violation that I really don't understand what else to say...
This article talks about how some catholic pharmacists have a problem with selling a morning after pill labeled "Plan B" and how there was a ruling by their governing body, licensing board, that if they don't fill prescriptions they could loose their ability to practice. Keep in mind this is a regulated state funded organization, the licensing board. What this means is that they are threatening to take away the ability to practice for anyone who doesn't violate their religious beliefs and hand someone the tool which will be used to abort a pregnancy.
I often hear people say the magic words when I talk about things like this... you know them... say them with me. Separation of church and state... That's right, those are the words. Well guess what, I have some news for you. Those words arnt in any of our founding documents. No I'm serious, look let me show you.
What people cite is the first amendment, here's what that says:
See the problem lies in the fact that this is indeed a violation of those individual pharmacists right to practice their religion freely. If they do practice their religion, which involves the not being party to abortion, something they disagree with on a religious level, they are subject to fines, punishment, and possibly loss of career. I hope this makes it to the supreme court. God doesn't need defending, but man sure does.
This article talks about how some catholic pharmacists have a problem with selling a morning after pill labeled "Plan B" and how there was a ruling by their governing body, licensing board, that if they don't fill prescriptions they could loose their ability to practice. Keep in mind this is a regulated state funded organization, the licensing board. What this means is that they are threatening to take away the ability to practice for anyone who doesn't violate their religious beliefs and hand someone the tool which will be used to abort a pregnancy.
I often hear people say the magic words when I talk about things like this... you know them... say them with me. Separation of church and state... That's right, those are the words. Well guess what, I have some news for you. Those words arnt in any of our founding documents. No I'm serious, look let me show you.
What people cite is the first amendment, here's what that says:
US Constitution. Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."See I told you I wouldn't steer you wrong, want to see something cool, guess where you CAN find those words...
The constitution of the former Soviet Union. Article II, Chapter 5, Section 13: "For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religious propaganda is accorded to every citizen."I kid you not boys and girls, that line is taken straight from the handbook of Karl Marx himself.
See the problem lies in the fact that this is indeed a violation of those individual pharmacists right to practice their religion freely. If they do practice their religion, which involves the not being party to abortion, something they disagree with on a religious level, they are subject to fines, punishment, and possibly loss of career. I hope this makes it to the supreme court. God doesn't need defending, but man sure does.
"point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable’"
OK so there was this ruling in the supreme court the other day about the upholding of a ban on "partial birth abortions". It got through for a few reasons, primarily because of the testimony that this procedure is never needed for health reasons, thus precluding the often used loophole of... well what ever the hell someone wants to use as a "health reason". This has traditionally been things such as finances, mood, social impact, stress. I'm really not making these up, actual cases cite things such as the mother doesn't want stretch marks as a health concern and reason for a partial birth abortion.
Here in lies the problem, Roe V. Wade very clearly says that an abortion is legal for any reason the woman desires up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable'". Lets take a look at that for a moment, your inducing the delivery of a baby, pulling its head out of the body, and then crushing its skull or sucking the brains out of its head. This is an otherwise healthy baby. This is a baby that in many cases has nothing wrong with it. This is a VIABLE child! I fail to see why we needed this law to begin with. Isn't this procedure illegal as per the confines set forth in Roe V. Wade? It does not say the right to have an abortion under any circumstance for any reason up until the child is delivered (which mind you, what part of partial birth do you not quite understand... so even then)
As much as I actually do be live life starts at conception, I actually agree with Roe V. Wade from a point of view. When I say life its in a vague sense, quite literally every living cell on any living item on the planet is just as alive as a fertilized egg. Do I think its alive, yes, does it have the capacity to grow into a human, yes... However so does every skin cell on your body. Thus I look at the term alive not to mean living separate organism. As a matter of fact I consider a fetus to be a parasite quite a few months after birth through the breast feeding stage. That departs from the question however. At what point is it a viable separate organism? Well for that answer I think we need to look at some common practices.
A baby is typically considered generally viable after 22 weeks, that's mid 5Th month for the math impaired. However we now have this case. In that a 21 week old lived, this forces the question, is the beginning of the 5Th month the point at which an infant could live outside the womb? The answer is clearly yes as it has happened already. So as a rule any abortion, as per the courts own decree after the 5Th month is automatically illegal, I can imagine that a viable infant killed would be, as per Roe V. Wade... murder. OK now the larger question. There are roughly 1million abortions performed in the united states every year, I wish I was making that number up. Mind you there is only 300 million people in the country, only half of them women, so that means since its inception in 1973 there have been 34 million, give or take, abortions out of 150million people. That's a pretty high percentage if you ask me.
Now the advocates of this will say that its a deeply personal and troubling procedure, and is undertaken with anguish. They will say that most of these cases are rape or incest. They will say alot of things to be frank. Well as per this stat site there are only 89,110 rapes in the united states per year. I dont want to say only as if that means I dont think that's too many, however even if every single one resulted in pregnancy, and in reality when women are only able to conceive 4 days out of the month if they are lucky we know that this is just statistically impossible. But lets just go with it and say that someone was really unlucky one year and every single rape victim conceived. That still means that less than 10% of all abortions are due to rape, over 90% are not (even if you say every single victim got pregnant).
People say you should have a choice over your own body... but that's really the question here isnt it. Just exactly who's body, and for that matter, what about the parents... no I'm not talking about the girls parents, that's a whole separate issue, I'm talking about the father. Last time I checked it takes both a male and a female to produce offspring. What about his parental rights? Arnt his rights as a father being violated by her in fact murdering, OK lets speculate that she wouldn't have carried full term and be lenient and say attempted murder, or at least assault. After all that infant has the same chance of becoming a human as the skin cells on your arm right? so if I took a vacuum or some poison and injected it into your arm, killing a clump of cells would that not be aggravated assault?
I think the point I'm making here is its a very dangerous game you play when you start attempting to determine when something is and is not worthless, particularly in respect to life. We take great precautions when executing our dangerous criminals, but there is no respect given for the loss of life which occurs during an abortion.
I say until we have a better way of looking at it that 5 months should be set as viable, and anything beyond that which does not involve the death of the mother should not involve the death of a child. How horrible is it that someone wants a health mandate. You really want to say that emotional hardship is reason enough to kill someone. You will be stressed and don't feel like having a baby, mind you, you did have months to make up your mind, but no, now that it has a chance to escape and survive you deem it OK to kill it... hmm.
On a side note I'm all for child abuse charges for those who deliberately cause harm to "viable" children such as drinking, smoking, taking drugs would be the main ones.
Here in lies the problem, Roe V. Wade very clearly says that an abortion is legal for any reason the woman desires up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable'". Lets take a look at that for a moment, your inducing the delivery of a baby, pulling its head out of the body, and then crushing its skull or sucking the brains out of its head. This is an otherwise healthy baby. This is a baby that in many cases has nothing wrong with it. This is a VIABLE child! I fail to see why we needed this law to begin with. Isn't this procedure illegal as per the confines set forth in Roe V. Wade? It does not say the right to have an abortion under any circumstance for any reason up until the child is delivered (which mind you, what part of partial birth do you not quite understand... so even then)
As much as I actually do be live life starts at conception, I actually agree with Roe V. Wade from a point of view. When I say life its in a vague sense, quite literally every living cell on any living item on the planet is just as alive as a fertilized egg. Do I think its alive, yes, does it have the capacity to grow into a human, yes... However so does every skin cell on your body. Thus I look at the term alive not to mean living separate organism. As a matter of fact I consider a fetus to be a parasite quite a few months after birth through the breast feeding stage. That departs from the question however. At what point is it a viable separate organism? Well for that answer I think we need to look at some common practices.
A baby is typically considered generally viable after 22 weeks, that's mid 5Th month for the math impaired. However we now have this case. In that a 21 week old lived, this forces the question, is the beginning of the 5Th month the point at which an infant could live outside the womb? The answer is clearly yes as it has happened already. So as a rule any abortion, as per the courts own decree after the 5Th month is automatically illegal, I can imagine that a viable infant killed would be, as per Roe V. Wade... murder. OK now the larger question. There are roughly 1million abortions performed in the united states every year, I wish I was making that number up. Mind you there is only 300 million people in the country, only half of them women, so that means since its inception in 1973 there have been 34 million, give or take, abortions out of 150million people. That's a pretty high percentage if you ask me.
Now the advocates of this will say that its a deeply personal and troubling procedure, and is undertaken with anguish. They will say that most of these cases are rape or incest. They will say alot of things to be frank. Well as per this stat site there are only 89,110 rapes in the united states per year. I dont want to say only as if that means I dont think that's too many, however even if every single one resulted in pregnancy, and in reality when women are only able to conceive 4 days out of the month if they are lucky we know that this is just statistically impossible. But lets just go with it and say that someone was really unlucky one year and every single rape victim conceived. That still means that less than 10% of all abortions are due to rape, over 90% are not (even if you say every single victim got pregnant).
People say you should have a choice over your own body... but that's really the question here isnt it. Just exactly who's body, and for that matter, what about the parents... no I'm not talking about the girls parents, that's a whole separate issue, I'm talking about the father. Last time I checked it takes both a male and a female to produce offspring. What about his parental rights? Arnt his rights as a father being violated by her in fact murdering, OK lets speculate that she wouldn't have carried full term and be lenient and say attempted murder, or at least assault. After all that infant has the same chance of becoming a human as the skin cells on your arm right? so if I took a vacuum or some poison and injected it into your arm, killing a clump of cells would that not be aggravated assault?
I think the point I'm making here is its a very dangerous game you play when you start attempting to determine when something is and is not worthless, particularly in respect to life. We take great precautions when executing our dangerous criminals, but there is no respect given for the loss of life which occurs during an abortion.
I say until we have a better way of looking at it that 5 months should be set as viable, and anything beyond that which does not involve the death of the mother should not involve the death of a child. How horrible is it that someone wants a health mandate. You really want to say that emotional hardship is reason enough to kill someone. You will be stressed and don't feel like having a baby, mind you, you did have months to make up your mind, but no, now that it has a chance to escape and survive you deem it OK to kill it... hmm.
On a side note I'm all for child abuse charges for those who deliberately cause harm to "viable" children such as drinking, smoking, taking drugs would be the main ones.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Personal Responsibility
What ever happened to people realizing that when something happens, theres a very great chance that they had a very large part, often times the only part, in creating the problem. Recently I have had a few discussions that just got me very angry. I was going to put the word confused there, but that's a PC word that means pissed off that we have been tought to use. I decided not to use it because it perfectly illustrates my point. Someone does something stupid, and we have been so conditioned to believe that its not any ones fault that we share the blame, claiming ignorance at what actuality happened so as not to hurt any ones feelings. Someone gets drunk and gets behind the wheel, people say things like "I just don't understand why someone would do that". The hell you don't, they are irresponsible fucks that don't give a shit about anyone but their own drunken, sullen, and pathetic self... many times not even that.
What happened when we as a society insists on sharing the burden for the pathetic looses of the planet. Sure I'm all about eugenics, I think its a great idea, hell so did the inventor if planned parenthood. But that withstanding, if we are going to allow rampant stupidity, the least we could do is decry it and point out how pathetic it is. Its not OK to be irresponsible, yes it happens, but its not OK. That's the line people have crossed. It used to be accepted that you still cared for people even when they did moronic things, but in today's world, we don't even see it as moronic, its just different. Different my ass, its wrong, why cant we say somethings wrong anymore? Its no longer wrong to disobey the law if you don't agree with it, as pointed out by Pelosi who violated the Logan act, was guilty of sedition, and quit possibly treason. Mind you this isn't some crazy hippy with no life... well OK yes it is, but shes also speaker of the house, third in line for president.... and here she is giving the finger to our government.
I'm just at a loss, we have Keith Ellison swearing in to congress using Thomas Jefferson's koran. For those who don't know, this was the capitalist used to justify the destruction of the Barbary pirates. It is also where the line "from the shores of Tripoli" and the slang term leatherneck originated for our US Marines. This was a koran used to destroy muslums, and here Ellison decides because people are idiots and don't know any better its a cool publicity stunt.
I can go on and on about the stupidity that's rampant. While I loathe intelligent hate spewing liberals, I have to say, I like them better than the cattle that surround both sides. Pick a side in life, believe what you believe and for Gods sake know why you believe it.
What happened when we as a society insists on sharing the burden for the pathetic looses of the planet. Sure I'm all about eugenics, I think its a great idea, hell so did the inventor if planned parenthood. But that withstanding, if we are going to allow rampant stupidity, the least we could do is decry it and point out how pathetic it is. Its not OK to be irresponsible, yes it happens, but its not OK. That's the line people have crossed. It used to be accepted that you still cared for people even when they did moronic things, but in today's world, we don't even see it as moronic, its just different. Different my ass, its wrong, why cant we say somethings wrong anymore? Its no longer wrong to disobey the law if you don't agree with it, as pointed out by Pelosi who violated the Logan act, was guilty of sedition, and quit possibly treason. Mind you this isn't some crazy hippy with no life... well OK yes it is, but shes also speaker of the house, third in line for president.... and here she is giving the finger to our government.
I'm just at a loss, we have Keith Ellison swearing in to congress using Thomas Jefferson's koran. For those who don't know, this was the capitalist used to justify the destruction of the Barbary pirates. It is also where the line "from the shores of Tripoli" and the slang term leatherneck originated for our US Marines. This was a koran used to destroy muslums, and here Ellison decides because people are idiots and don't know any better its a cool publicity stunt.
I can go on and on about the stupidity that's rampant. While I loathe intelligent hate spewing liberals, I have to say, I like them better than the cattle that surround both sides. Pick a side in life, believe what you believe and for Gods sake know why you believe it.
Revelation 3:14-22 (King James Version)
14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Treat others
So this post will differ from my typical post where I use reference and such to prove a point. This is more a rant about my great confusion over particular behaviors and mind sets.
Reactionary and vindictive behaviors, honestly while I understand them I find them becoming more and more previlant every day. I was recently introduced to a term "emo", short for emotional. Now for those who read this who actually know me, you are aware that I absolutely dispise emotion. It is clearly the root of evil and brings about things I have heard over the last few weeks. Let me give an example of someone I have talked with, and a few of their more recent actions. Person gets into a car accident with someone, now it is claimed that they were not responsible, however due to the constantly high emotional level of this person facts are basically unsubstantiated. See to the emotional mind facts are irrelevant. Well the person they were in an accident with apparently didnt have insurance. The first question I have is, are you alright of course. Their response... im going to sue the pants off them. Ok first off lets let logic interject. If they dont have insurence, chances are they dont have money. Your going to take someone who has virtualy nothing, and beat them because your pissy. Beyond that, why in gods name is that your first reaction? To point out that this is not an isolated incident, earlier they had been talking about sueing the electric company for what may or may not have been an error on their part. See when I asked if the high bill that said person was claiming was in error their reply was, and im not making this up, "I dont care, im not paying it". So your reaction to something you dont like, even if you actually are responsible, is the sue untill you get your way? Im reminded of a recent quote from rosie o donnel to the effect that when she was growing up she learned that to be a patriot was to yell and scream louder and louder untill the government did what you wanted. Consider that we have an entire group of people who actually believe that its acceptable to behave like children and scream and stamp your feet when you dont get what you want. I find that behavior detestable but hey, im old school I guess. Then there was today, where I was asking about this persons business that they supposedly run and they talked with great glee about how their original partner pissed them off, so they used their clout to buy him out and make sure no one would work with him again. Adding that "their lawyer" informed them that the old partner would be filing for bankruptcy soon. This person was ecstatic that they ruined someones life out of spite and vindictiveness. First clue, if you use the words "my lawyer" in virtually every conversation, you have serious issues.
Then theres a few others, for instance the person my wife works with who boasts that between him and his family he has 13 outstanding lawsuits. Mind you he just bought a new truck with cash, fully tricked out, and basicaly that kind of equiptment is far above his lifestyle. He has made a career off of stealing from people. Only diffrence is insted of a gun he uses a lawyer.
These people see nothing wrong with what they do. To them its business as usual. What I find terribly odd is that they would respond to the exact same behavior from others with I would imagine near homicidal rage. Where did we as a people get this type of entitlement? At what point did people start thinking so highly of themselves that they endangered others livelihood. Or even more basic, that they felt they were entitled to others things. In the first example, the person was upset that while they only took 5 thousand dollars out of the company in a year, the partner bought a vehicle and a house. There are some objects here which I am not aware of, for instance, while I know the person I talked to had someone with them that took care of other expenses, whos to say the partner did? If you are part of a business and you need to make a house payment it makes sense to me to spend it. Having a thriving business and living on the street dosent make much sense. However when questioned about this, the direct line given was "he was stealing from me"... sorry, werent you partners?
Its that rampant selfishness that I dont understand. If you partner with someone, thats a binding ideal, even if its not on paper. I guess I just dont do well with un moral people. I cant understand why someone would take pleasure in the dis pleasure of others. Well thats not exactly true, but I really dont want to accept that the vast majority of people are self serving peices of shit who would rather devour their fellow man than share a peice of bread with them. Apparently I am quite old fashoned.
Reactionary and vindictive behaviors, honestly while I understand them I find them becoming more and more previlant every day. I was recently introduced to a term "emo", short for emotional. Now for those who read this who actually know me, you are aware that I absolutely dispise emotion. It is clearly the root of evil and brings about things I have heard over the last few weeks. Let me give an example of someone I have talked with, and a few of their more recent actions. Person gets into a car accident with someone, now it is claimed that they were not responsible, however due to the constantly high emotional level of this person facts are basically unsubstantiated. See to the emotional mind facts are irrelevant. Well the person they were in an accident with apparently didnt have insurance. The first question I have is, are you alright of course. Their response... im going to sue the pants off them. Ok first off lets let logic interject. If they dont have insurence, chances are they dont have money. Your going to take someone who has virtualy nothing, and beat them because your pissy. Beyond that, why in gods name is that your first reaction? To point out that this is not an isolated incident, earlier they had been talking about sueing the electric company for what may or may not have been an error on their part. See when I asked if the high bill that said person was claiming was in error their reply was, and im not making this up, "I dont care, im not paying it". So your reaction to something you dont like, even if you actually are responsible, is the sue untill you get your way? Im reminded of a recent quote from rosie o donnel to the effect that when she was growing up she learned that to be a patriot was to yell and scream louder and louder untill the government did what you wanted. Consider that we have an entire group of people who actually believe that its acceptable to behave like children and scream and stamp your feet when you dont get what you want. I find that behavior detestable but hey, im old school I guess. Then there was today, where I was asking about this persons business that they supposedly run and they talked with great glee about how their original partner pissed them off, so they used their clout to buy him out and make sure no one would work with him again. Adding that "their lawyer" informed them that the old partner would be filing for bankruptcy soon. This person was ecstatic that they ruined someones life out of spite and vindictiveness. First clue, if you use the words "my lawyer" in virtually every conversation, you have serious issues.
Then theres a few others, for instance the person my wife works with who boasts that between him and his family he has 13 outstanding lawsuits. Mind you he just bought a new truck with cash, fully tricked out, and basicaly that kind of equiptment is far above his lifestyle. He has made a career off of stealing from people. Only diffrence is insted of a gun he uses a lawyer.
These people see nothing wrong with what they do. To them its business as usual. What I find terribly odd is that they would respond to the exact same behavior from others with I would imagine near homicidal rage. Where did we as a people get this type of entitlement? At what point did people start thinking so highly of themselves that they endangered others livelihood. Or even more basic, that they felt they were entitled to others things. In the first example, the person was upset that while they only took 5 thousand dollars out of the company in a year, the partner bought a vehicle and a house. There are some objects here which I am not aware of, for instance, while I know the person I talked to had someone with them that took care of other expenses, whos to say the partner did? If you are part of a business and you need to make a house payment it makes sense to me to spend it. Having a thriving business and living on the street dosent make much sense. However when questioned about this, the direct line given was "he was stealing from me"... sorry, werent you partners?
Its that rampant selfishness that I dont understand. If you partner with someone, thats a binding ideal, even if its not on paper. I guess I just dont do well with un moral people. I cant understand why someone would take pleasure in the dis pleasure of others. Well thats not exactly true, but I really dont want to accept that the vast majority of people are self serving peices of shit who would rather devour their fellow man than share a peice of bread with them. Apparently I am quite old fashoned.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Who else is pro-wife beating!
Well its been a bit since my last entry, so lets just jump right in with some talk of violence. Wife beating, spousal abuse, what ever you want to call it. The question here is, is it wrong? Now I know this sounds like a stupid question. But of course its wrong, right? I mean how could being physically violent with someone be right? Well for that answer you have to not be an idiot, and remove the word physically from that last sentence.
Lets take a moment to examine male vs female traits. At their core, although plenty of bull dyke's and fema-nazis would bunch their panties, females are the "weaker" of the two. With common traits being social/co-operative in nature such as group problem solving, outward compassion, hyper verbalization and the like. Females are very much wired to be social creatures and work within a group of semi-equals. It is not uncommon to have one pack leader, but typically no more than that, and even that position is not absolute with frequent discussions and disagreements with leadership. Situations are worked out in group think.
Now this is all very obvious and well known, that part wasn't written as much as education as mental orientation. Look at those traits, its well known that women work better in a group. Males on the other hand, well their groups tend to be slightly different. Men hold things like disrespect and loyalty to be much more than fleeting thoughts, as considered by their counterparts. Men have very clear hierarchy within their ranks, from high man down to low man, everyone is classed. Dissension within the ranks is rarely accepted, and while disagreement is welcomed, final say is absolute with the alpha.
These are just a few pattern traits, now lets examine one very specific trait, violence. What constitutes violence to women? How do they act out agenst each other? Do they claw, bite, pull hair? Not really no, on the contrary it is very unlikely for a female orientated dispute to erupt into physical violence. Female violence takes on the place of female orientated traits. There will be name calling, passive aggressive actions, back biting, and the ever popular, bitching. At this point if you are unfamiliar with, or are unwilling to accept the presence of these items in the real world, and womens use of them as tools then stop reading now as you are too deep in the rabbit hole to see the light so to speak.
Ok lets look at the other side of the coin, male pattern traits as they relate to violence. Men are much more direct in their actions. Male aggression would be more seen as physical posturing, short and direct threats, and of course physical violence. There are a few key differences to note here, and I will point out that these finer points are completely un-understood by females. Men do not find it uncommon that after a fight, the two combatants would laugh, pat each other on the back, and possibly even hug (though rarely as thats not manly), this stems from the root of the violence itself. Men test themselves and pair off physically, women pair off and test themselves verbally.
Lets look real close at that last sentence now with a real world example. Woman comes home, shes had a bad day for whatever reason, she starts to yell and piss and moan. Now as males in the current age, we are expected to tuck our balls between our legs and let her vent, after all we are the stronger (a nice double standard there eh?) and its not like shes actually hurting you right? Take a look at some decent information regarding this issue, of particular interest are the definitions.
Why don't we play that scenario back using a different set of formula. Lets have the man be the aggressor and replace the wife with a male friend. Male comes home, friend is not doing much, playing a video game perhaps, male stomps around and grumbles walking right in front of the screen and pausing for a moment (this is a direct passive aggressive action designed to provoke a fight) friend replies with some angry outburst (short direct threats) along the lines of move your butt or the like, male gets the trigger he was looking for and turns yelling about some random item, the important part is body position however (posturing) friend stands as a fight is imminent (more posturing) and after a moment one of them (traditionally the primary aggressor, male in this case) takes a swing. This may go on for a few moments, or a few minuets depending on back issues. The fight ends and both dust each other, one says hes sorry he over reacted, and life moves on.
Now enter the confusion, the explanation, and the problem. For my entire life (turned 30 two days ago) I have been told that male traits were wrong, aggression was evil, I should sever my penis and live life as a more enlightened woman.... blah blah blah, its really quite scathing. The confusion comes in that while women know they are attacking men, they don't understand why they are hit more often than not. Well its because you provoked a response. Heres the visual as above, as seen through the eyes of a man, and what should happen under typical circumstances had we not been told it is not Ok to be masculine. Woman comes home, starts bitching (verbal threats), man responds to the benign comments (verbal threats), woman seeing the man entering into a verbal match continues to escalate the assault (verbal threats, posturing), man responds by moving within strike range (heavy posturing), woman responds to her threat of personal space by becoming very animated (reciprocated heavy posturing), and finally woman is hit. Now the man is angrier than normal for a few reasons. First she questioned his authority, second she did not heed his warnings, and third she was unqualified for the battle she provoked. That last one is interesting, consider a bee stings you, now you could just pluck it off and send it on its way, however the normal response is one much more primal, a subconscious "how dare a pathetic thing like you attack me", which is often followed quickly by a quick death on the part of the bee. Its that last one why two men can fight and become friends, a man hits a woman and continues to strike her. The very idea of an unqualified fight is insulting.
See the underlying problem here is miscommunication, and a horrible double standard. As long as emotional violence and physical violence are not seen on the same level, and as long as males are shown to be the horrible overlords and suppressors of women, we are going to have this problem. In short, my current view on this is that the vast majority of spousal abuse cases are completely warranted. As I often say, if you jump into a lions cage covered in bloody meat, don't get upset when you become dinner.
Lets take a moment to examine male vs female traits. At their core, although plenty of bull dyke's and fema-nazis would bunch their panties, females are the "weaker" of the two. With common traits being social/co-operative in nature such as group problem solving, outward compassion, hyper verbalization and the like. Females are very much wired to be social creatures and work within a group of semi-equals. It is not uncommon to have one pack leader, but typically no more than that, and even that position is not absolute with frequent discussions and disagreements with leadership. Situations are worked out in group think.
Now this is all very obvious and well known, that part wasn't written as much as education as mental orientation. Look at those traits, its well known that women work better in a group. Males on the other hand, well their groups tend to be slightly different. Men hold things like disrespect and loyalty to be much more than fleeting thoughts, as considered by their counterparts. Men have very clear hierarchy within their ranks, from high man down to low man, everyone is classed. Dissension within the ranks is rarely accepted, and while disagreement is welcomed, final say is absolute with the alpha.
These are just a few pattern traits, now lets examine one very specific trait, violence. What constitutes violence to women? How do they act out agenst each other? Do they claw, bite, pull hair? Not really no, on the contrary it is very unlikely for a female orientated dispute to erupt into physical violence. Female violence takes on the place of female orientated traits. There will be name calling, passive aggressive actions, back biting, and the ever popular, bitching. At this point if you are unfamiliar with, or are unwilling to accept the presence of these items in the real world, and womens use of them as tools then stop reading now as you are too deep in the rabbit hole to see the light so to speak.
Ok lets look at the other side of the coin, male pattern traits as they relate to violence. Men are much more direct in their actions. Male aggression would be more seen as physical posturing, short and direct threats, and of course physical violence. There are a few key differences to note here, and I will point out that these finer points are completely un-understood by females. Men do not find it uncommon that after a fight, the two combatants would laugh, pat each other on the back, and possibly even hug (though rarely as thats not manly), this stems from the root of the violence itself. Men test themselves and pair off physically, women pair off and test themselves verbally.
Lets look real close at that last sentence now with a real world example. Woman comes home, shes had a bad day for whatever reason, she starts to yell and piss and moan. Now as males in the current age, we are expected to tuck our balls between our legs and let her vent, after all we are the stronger (a nice double standard there eh?) and its not like shes actually hurting you right? Take a look at some decent information regarding this issue, of particular interest are the definitions.
Why don't we play that scenario back using a different set of formula. Lets have the man be the aggressor and replace the wife with a male friend. Male comes home, friend is not doing much, playing a video game perhaps, male stomps around and grumbles walking right in front of the screen and pausing for a moment (this is a direct passive aggressive action designed to provoke a fight) friend replies with some angry outburst (short direct threats) along the lines of move your butt or the like, male gets the trigger he was looking for and turns yelling about some random item, the important part is body position however (posturing) friend stands as a fight is imminent (more posturing) and after a moment one of them (traditionally the primary aggressor, male in this case) takes a swing. This may go on for a few moments, or a few minuets depending on back issues. The fight ends and both dust each other, one says hes sorry he over reacted, and life moves on.
Now enter the confusion, the explanation, and the problem. For my entire life (turned 30 two days ago) I have been told that male traits were wrong, aggression was evil, I should sever my penis and live life as a more enlightened woman.... blah blah blah, its really quite scathing. The confusion comes in that while women know they are attacking men, they don't understand why they are hit more often than not. Well its because you provoked a response. Heres the visual as above, as seen through the eyes of a man, and what should happen under typical circumstances had we not been told it is not Ok to be masculine. Woman comes home, starts bitching (verbal threats), man responds to the benign comments (verbal threats), woman seeing the man entering into a verbal match continues to escalate the assault (verbal threats, posturing), man responds by moving within strike range (heavy posturing), woman responds to her threat of personal space by becoming very animated (reciprocated heavy posturing), and finally woman is hit. Now the man is angrier than normal for a few reasons. First she questioned his authority, second she did not heed his warnings, and third she was unqualified for the battle she provoked. That last one is interesting, consider a bee stings you, now you could just pluck it off and send it on its way, however the normal response is one much more primal, a subconscious "how dare a pathetic thing like you attack me", which is often followed quickly by a quick death on the part of the bee. Its that last one why two men can fight and become friends, a man hits a woman and continues to strike her. The very idea of an unqualified fight is insulting.
See the underlying problem here is miscommunication, and a horrible double standard. As long as emotional violence and physical violence are not seen on the same level, and as long as males are shown to be the horrible overlords and suppressors of women, we are going to have this problem. In short, my current view on this is that the vast majority of spousal abuse cases are completely warranted. As I often say, if you jump into a lions cage covered in bloody meat, don't get upset when you become dinner.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Is there really a right and wrong?
Right and wrong... to this I would counter with is there really only opinion. The opinion argument is one that has confused me for a while. Its like starting a sentence with "No offence but...", clearly you are going to say something offensive. The most pervasive place I see this is with the uncouth behavior of women. A term many of you should be familiar with, its called "bitching". Over generations, and particularly since the whole women's liberation movement, it has become more and more acceptable for women to spout off every and any senseless tantrum at any given time and claim some useless drivel such as "I'm just telling the truth" or something of that nonsense. In reality your being mean, rude, and generally (as the term implies) a bitch. But I digress, that is just an example of opinion being used to excuse poor behavior that would never be acceptable if portrayed as anything other than cheerful conversation.
Really though, is there a right and wrong to things or are all things opinion. I would counter with this line from a very good movie if you can stand the slow parts. In K-Pax Jeff Bridges plays a psychiatrist who is trying to help Kevin Spacey who believes he is from another planet. In one of their counseling sessions Bridges asks Spacey about his home world and when it is discovered that they have no laws this conversation takes place (paraphrased as I don't remember the exact words). "You have no laws? Then how do you know the difference between right and wrong?" After a very perplexed look from Spacey he replies "Every creature in the Galaxy knows the difference between right and wrong Doctor." For me that was a very powerful statement, and one I completely agree with. Why is it that my dog has his head down when I come home and he has been in the trash, why do children close doors when they are doing something they are not supposed to? Its because, quite literally, every creature in the Galaxy knows the difference between right and wrong. The difference is that humans have chosen to attempt to redefine that standard. If you want an example try this, run a red light. In the middle of the night on a dirt road with no one for miles. If you are a moral person you will get that feeling in your stomach that could possibly prevent you from doing it at all, but even if you are able to push through that, the tightness in your stomach will actually cause you pain. Why is that. You can see that there are no cars around, your clearly not in danger of being hit. The only explanation is that you are about to do something very wrong and you know it, even though, and this is the really important part, even though there are no worldly consequences.
Lets look at right and wrong in a different light, what are they. They are a system of morality, without religion they do not exist, as religion is what gives us this moral code. Now I believe that this code is ingrained in each and every person regardless, however religion spells it out for us as well if you somehow get confused. If you want an example of this look at nature, we don't find it offensive or punishable if a lion kills another who is attempting to force him out of the pride.... however god forbid I come home and find another man in my house with my wife and slice him into thin strips. I would be tried and convicted of murder. Why, you have to ask yourself why. If we truly are just animals, then why does it matter, why do we not as a population follow the law of the animals? Whats funny is the people who are traditionally the most agenst religion and what it brings, are also the most agenst people possessing weapons. You would think that would be the other way around.
So right and wrong are a matter of religion, however without religion humans and animals (of course animals have no religion) know the difference, so clearly everything exists within this fabric. At the same time there are real indications of when you are doing something wrong, the stop light example. So we have established that there is indeed a right and wrong regardless of if you decide to believe it or not.
The next step is what actions are right and what are wrong, now this is where it gets fuzzy. Personally I choose to go with the logic approach. I remove emotion, and what is left I sort out in the most logical way possible. Basically this is the way the US legal system is supposed to work, a system I completely support in theory (in practice it is a political circle jerk but that's not the systems fault that's the people in it not doing their job). You have to remember, all sins are based off emotion, I very much believe that emotion is the practical application of free will. It is that fudge factor that takes a right decision and turns it into a wrong one. Often times I hear people say "I know what I should do, but I feel like I should do something else"... read that again if you didn't catch the irony.
Of course how deep does this rabbit hole go, is the world black and white or shades of grey. Well remember right and wrong is an aspect of religion right (this is where I'm about to get a little biblical for those unsuspecting readers who would rather hug a tree at this point). Its stated clearly, much to many peoples dismay, that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, thus if an action is a sin, it is bad. Not a little bad, but completely and equally as bad any ANY other sin. To answer that question you are having right now, yes, jay walking is the same as mass homicide. The only reason people choose not to believe that is because they... wait for it... don't want to FEEL bad about themselves. They want to say, well sure I'm not perfect, but at least I'm not....yea... all equal in the eyes of God. Its this perspective that many don't want to face. So if all sins are just as bad as any other sins, then the converse, are all rights as good as any other right. Well by simple algebra yes, it has to be so to balance the equation. OK so good actions and bad actions are all black and white.
What about things that don't exactly have a good and a bad, well there again your fooling yourself. There is not an action that you can take that does not have one of those connotations. You may think otherwise but that's because you are looking for that fudge factor. Think about it, upon reading that last sentence whats the first thing that came to your mind... "oh there must be some thing that docent have either good or evil to it." I heard a very good sermon the other day about perversion, how it starts small, looking for excuses, just minor ones, and later branches out into massive inconsistencies. Again getting metaphysical, the bible is assumed to be infallible, because it is a representation of God, thus if Satan were to be able to create a situation where the bible contradicted itself... it would all fall apart. Now consider that situation. Satan isn't trying to tell you that God doesn't exist, even he isn't that arrogant (unlike many many humans) all he is trying to tell you is that hes not perfect, and thus not worthy of being followed.
Lets connect the logic chain on this one, all actions have good or bad (right or wrong) connotations. Choosing good puts you on the side of God, choosing bad puts you on the side of Satan. Satan is attempting to show humans that there is exceptions to the laws of God. By doing this God is no longer perfect, and thus no longer need be worshiped or followed. Looping back to the beginning, if your not following God your following Satan. Satan wins.
The problem people have is they think they are important in ways that are irreverent (worldly) and insignificant in ways that are paramount (Godly). It is this confusion over our purpose in the world that causes people to kill for shoes, seek earthly pleasures at the expense of their soul, and numerous other examples. You have to ask, if people know the difference between right and wrong, why would they do such a thing. I answer you, emotion... free will... because it feels good and because they can.
Really though, is there a right and wrong to things or are all things opinion. I would counter with this line from a very good movie if you can stand the slow parts. In K-Pax Jeff Bridges plays a psychiatrist who is trying to help Kevin Spacey who believes he is from another planet. In one of their counseling sessions Bridges asks Spacey about his home world and when it is discovered that they have no laws this conversation takes place (paraphrased as I don't remember the exact words). "You have no laws? Then how do you know the difference between right and wrong?" After a very perplexed look from Spacey he replies "Every creature in the Galaxy knows the difference between right and wrong Doctor." For me that was a very powerful statement, and one I completely agree with. Why is it that my dog has his head down when I come home and he has been in the trash, why do children close doors when they are doing something they are not supposed to? Its because, quite literally, every creature in the Galaxy knows the difference between right and wrong. The difference is that humans have chosen to attempt to redefine that standard. If you want an example try this, run a red light. In the middle of the night on a dirt road with no one for miles. If you are a moral person you will get that feeling in your stomach that could possibly prevent you from doing it at all, but even if you are able to push through that, the tightness in your stomach will actually cause you pain. Why is that. You can see that there are no cars around, your clearly not in danger of being hit. The only explanation is that you are about to do something very wrong and you know it, even though, and this is the really important part, even though there are no worldly consequences.
Lets look at right and wrong in a different light, what are they. They are a system of morality, without religion they do not exist, as religion is what gives us this moral code. Now I believe that this code is ingrained in each and every person regardless, however religion spells it out for us as well if you somehow get confused. If you want an example of this look at nature, we don't find it offensive or punishable if a lion kills another who is attempting to force him out of the pride.... however god forbid I come home and find another man in my house with my wife and slice him into thin strips. I would be tried and convicted of murder. Why, you have to ask yourself why. If we truly are just animals, then why does it matter, why do we not as a population follow the law of the animals? Whats funny is the people who are traditionally the most agenst religion and what it brings, are also the most agenst people possessing weapons. You would think that would be the other way around.
So right and wrong are a matter of religion, however without religion humans and animals (of course animals have no religion) know the difference, so clearly everything exists within this fabric. At the same time there are real indications of when you are doing something wrong, the stop light example. So we have established that there is indeed a right and wrong regardless of if you decide to believe it or not.
The next step is what actions are right and what are wrong, now this is where it gets fuzzy. Personally I choose to go with the logic approach. I remove emotion, and what is left I sort out in the most logical way possible. Basically this is the way the US legal system is supposed to work, a system I completely support in theory (in practice it is a political circle jerk but that's not the systems fault that's the people in it not doing their job). You have to remember, all sins are based off emotion, I very much believe that emotion is the practical application of free will. It is that fudge factor that takes a right decision and turns it into a wrong one. Often times I hear people say "I know what I should do, but I feel like I should do something else"... read that again if you didn't catch the irony.
Of course how deep does this rabbit hole go, is the world black and white or shades of grey. Well remember right and wrong is an aspect of religion right (this is where I'm about to get a little biblical for those unsuspecting readers who would rather hug a tree at this point). Its stated clearly, much to many peoples dismay, that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, thus if an action is a sin, it is bad. Not a little bad, but completely and equally as bad any ANY other sin. To answer that question you are having right now, yes, jay walking is the same as mass homicide. The only reason people choose not to believe that is because they... wait for it... don't want to FEEL bad about themselves. They want to say, well sure I'm not perfect, but at least I'm not....yea... all equal in the eyes of God. Its this perspective that many don't want to face. So if all sins are just as bad as any other sins, then the converse, are all rights as good as any other right. Well by simple algebra yes, it has to be so to balance the equation. OK so good actions and bad actions are all black and white.
What about things that don't exactly have a good and a bad, well there again your fooling yourself. There is not an action that you can take that does not have one of those connotations. You may think otherwise but that's because you are looking for that fudge factor. Think about it, upon reading that last sentence whats the first thing that came to your mind... "oh there must be some thing that docent have either good or evil to it." I heard a very good sermon the other day about perversion, how it starts small, looking for excuses, just minor ones, and later branches out into massive inconsistencies. Again getting metaphysical, the bible is assumed to be infallible, because it is a representation of God, thus if Satan were to be able to create a situation where the bible contradicted itself... it would all fall apart. Now consider that situation. Satan isn't trying to tell you that God doesn't exist, even he isn't that arrogant (unlike many many humans) all he is trying to tell you is that hes not perfect, and thus not worthy of being followed.
Lets connect the logic chain on this one, all actions have good or bad (right or wrong) connotations. Choosing good puts you on the side of God, choosing bad puts you on the side of Satan. Satan is attempting to show humans that there is exceptions to the laws of God. By doing this God is no longer perfect, and thus no longer need be worshiped or followed. Looping back to the beginning, if your not following God your following Satan. Satan wins.
The problem people have is they think they are important in ways that are irreverent (worldly) and insignificant in ways that are paramount (Godly). It is this confusion over our purpose in the world that causes people to kill for shoes, seek earthly pleasures at the expense of their soul, and numerous other examples. You have to ask, if people know the difference between right and wrong, why would they do such a thing. I answer you, emotion... free will... because it feels good and because they can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
