Sunday, January 31, 2016
A link between Thomas Jefferson, Warfare, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? [...] The tree of liberty must be refreshed [periodically], with the blood of patriots and tyrants; [for these sacrifices are] its natural [fertilizer]." -- Thomas (bad-ass) Jefferson
I just love that quote. It's message is so powerful, that reading it will simultaneously bring a tear of joy to my eye, and ignite a fire in my heart, that endows me with an emotional strength that can move mountains. Yes, Thomas Jefferson was no doubt an intellectual bad-ass, and with the exception of his slave holdings, one of my favorite, if not, my most favored founding father. But the entire group was so chalk-full of high minded, freedom loving intellectuals, that picking a favorite is not an easy task.
Where are men of his caliber today?
He was a rare combination of both intellectual *AND* testicular fortitude, and none exist who possess even a modicum of his talents these days. Heck, I would have followed him into a campaign against even the most formidable of enemies, and achieved victory, or happily died trying. No one seems to have a yearning for glory anymore, much less real freedoms. We're all just a bunch of pathetic and apathetic slaves, waiting for our next menial assignment, or death, whichever comes first. Which reminds me of Aristotle's famous quip: "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
Sadly, we are now many generations into Aristotle's warning -- both here in the USA, and more broadly in the "West". Apathy is no longer a fringe menace, no, it has become normalized! And there is no doubt we tolerate far too much from the "enemies of freedom" than we should. Unless we find a way to re-ignite the "fire in our bellies", we will succumb to our own helplessness. It will be as if we hacked off our own arms and our own legs, and then attempted to engage our enemies in warfare. It is hopeless to believe that we can achieve victory by coddling our enemies -- coddling only empowers them! To achieve victory, we must destroy our enemies with extreme prejudice, quickly, and without mercy. And we must never apologize for protecting our "right to exist" by utilizing our superior technology to achieve those ends. War cannot be waged halfheartedly, for it were, it would violate the "lesson" of the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics.
A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT REGARDING CONFLICT (aka: war)
War is synonymous with "thermodynamic processes", in that, the proverbial manifestation of war presents us with opposing "thermodynamic bodies" (aka: armies, or more generally, sides), which are initially isolated within rooms that exist within a greater "house of conflict". Think of the "conflict of war" as a large house, a house containing two or more rooms, and in each room resides an army, an army who's sole directive is to seek and destroy it's enemies who are occupying the adjacent rooms. However, the armies cannot initiate the fighting themselves, because none of the armies possess the power to breach the walls, so they must quietly wait for an external force to break-down these walls, before they can begin fighting (aka: mixing). We can think of the walls as being constructed of an impermeable substance called peace. And until the "walls of peace" are broken down, say, via political turmoil, the armies are forced to sit silently and wait.
We need to also observe that when the armies initially marched into their respective rooms, the rooms were filled with the noise and chaos of their movements, but now the rooms have become silent, or in "thermodynamic terms", each room has reached a "state of equilibrium". But equilibrium is a subjective term, and does not in any way insinuate that all the rooms share the same amount of measurable energy. For instance: even though the ambient temperature/moisture levels in each room may be different (because of more, or less human bodies), or the stench level may be different (because some soldiers bathe more than others), the smells and temperatures in each room have "mixed down" to a point where they cannot mix any more. Therefore, each room as reached its own "unique state of equilibrium".
For the sake of pragmatism, we will ignore dynamic events such as flatulence, and assume the armies are in a state of "suspended animation".
So far, we've defined a structure (a house and some rooms) and the bodies (armies) that will facilitate a "thermodynamic-like process", but nothing will happen until we allow the armies to mix. We need an event that be the impetus of the thermodynamic process, which will lead us to the inevitable conclusion of our little lesson today... BREAKING NEWS: POLITICAL TURMOIL ERUPTS, AND THE WALLS OF PEACE ARE NOW DESTROYED... When the "walls of peace" are broken down, all of the armies find themselves immediately contained in a single, large room. Chaos quickly ensues, and as the armies engage in battle and "mix each small victory between two soldiers down" until their entire struggle reaches the ultimate "equilibrium of victory", the lesson of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is observed.
BUT WHAT IS THE LESSON RICK?
The lesson is: From the moment that the "walls of peace" are broken down, and up until the moment that absolute victory has been achieved, we must never interrupt the "equalizing process" by rebuilding the walls. Because when we fight against our enemies, and we are unwilling to achieve absolute victory (aka: equilibrium), the potential for future "thermodynamic energy exchange" (aka: war) is ever-present!
We can see fine examples of our past failures, and the "thermodynamic potential" they present, when observing the never ending "war on terror" and the never ending stalemate on the Korean peninsula, and when we juxtapose those two unresolved conflicts against the decisive victories over Japan and Germany --> WE SHALL BECOME ENLIGHTENED!
Ever heard of a Japanese or German terrorist attacking the West? Well, if you have, he was not motivated by WW2. Therefore, thermodynamics teaches us that we must achieve absolute victory at all costs, because if we do not achieve absolute victory, we will be forced to fight the war again, and again, until equilibrium is finally achieved.
These are the laws that govern the universe in which we live, so we would be wise to learn from them. Sure, we may not want to accept their cold bitter realities, but we are bound by their rules nonetheless.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Can the logical contradictions inherent in the "right of free speech" be resolved objectively?
Free speech is just one of many rights that our modern
societies protect by law, and for those of us, like myself,
who belief deeply in the importance of maintaining this
right in its "purest fundamental form", and simultaneously
value reason, logic, and objectivity -- how do *WE* resolve
the conflicts that arise when we're confronted with the
"famous contradiction" of:
"BUT, YOU CANNOT YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER"
Many have attempted to invalidate this argument, but IMO
their attempts have utterly failed, because they only attack
the argument superficially. In the presentation that
follows, I intend to prove that there is no direct path from
the "implied cause" to the "implied tragedy", in fact, the
"implied tragedy" is merely a consequence of a greater flaw
in our collective human psychology, and *NOT* a direct
result of unfettered free speech.
So before we dissect the famous contradiction, and judge its
merits objectively, we need to define the "lines in the
sand". There are two competing opinions as to how speech
should be protected. The first is summarized as:
"SPEECH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, AND SINCE THE
INTERPRETATION OF SPEECH IS *SO* SUBJECTIVE THAT LIMITING
SPEECH BASED ON THE CONSEQUENCES THAT IT *MAY* PROVOKE IS
A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WILL ULTIMATELY DESTROY THE ENTIRE
CONCEPT -- SPEECH MUST NEVER BE LIMITED -- NOT IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM"
and the modified version as:
"YES, SPEECH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, BUT SOME FORMS OF
SPEECH ARE THE IMPETUS OF TRAGEDY, SO IN SPECIFIC
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST LIMIT SPEECH TO PROTECT THE GENERAL
PUBLIC"
The modified form argues (via the "famous contradiction")
that a pure interpretation of free speech presents two
possible consequences, and therefor must be limited because:
(1) YOU CANNOT ABUSE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO "DISTURB
THE PEACE".
In other words: you're an asshole and a coward, who is
hiding behind the protections of "free speech" to shield
yourself from the consequences of harassing innocent people.
However, the second implication is far more troubling
because its consequences are of the tragic variety:
(2) BY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER, YOU COULD SET
OFF A CHAIN REACTION OF FEAR THAT WILL RESULT IN THE
INJURY OR DEATH OF THEATER PATRONS, VIA TRAMPLING, AS THEY
ATTEMPT TO EXIT.
Both of these justifications speak of real life consequences
that can occur if we do not heed their warnings. In the
first implication, we have speech that harasses (a
nuisance), and in the second, speech that provokes (a cause
to action).
The first is easily defeated with the counter argument of:
"You have no right *NOT* to be offended", but the second is
not as easily defeated, because as we know, when humans
become overwhelmed with fear (for instance, the fear of
being burned alive), they will (generally speaking)
instinctively ignore their capacity for empathy and
compassion, and will instead, evoke the single-purposed
modality of self-preservation! This is how we end up with
gruesome tragedies where piles of people are cooked alive at
the exits of a building, when otherwise, they might have
escaped unscathed.
However, we need to ask ourselves the tough question: Who is
*ULTIMATELY* responsible for this tragedy? I implore you:
can words *alone* reach into our psyche and disable emotions
at will, causing us to loose our capacity to feel empathy
and compassion? Or cause our legs to become animated and our
feet to trample on the bodies of those who are less
physically agile than we, as though we were marionettes
dangling helplessly from the ends of strings manipulated by
malevolent beings who harbor a penchant for puppeteering
Greek Tragedy?
At what point do *WE* take responsibility for *OUR* actions
in this chain of tragic events? Can we solely blame the
asshole who yelled fire? Or must we look deep inside
ourselves and admit that, whilst yelling fire, when there is
no fire is indeed rude, abandoning compassion and trampling
our peers to death, simply to serve our own selfish goals,
might just be the ultimate form of rudeness!
The realization that, in order for the tragic consequences
of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to become reality,
not *ONLY* must the abuser of free speech make his false
statement, but the *ENTIRE* body of the theater must react
in an irrational and chaotic manner -- break *ONE* link of
the chain, and the tragedy is avoided!
So the premise that we should limit speech because "yelling
fire in a crowed theater" could result in tragedy,
incorrectly places *ALL* the blame on the asshole who did
nothing more than tell a lie. That's it, he told a lie! But
it ignores that the patrons are the *DIRECT* causation of
the injury and/or death -- the asshole is merely the
indirect cause.
This "famous contradiction" to free speech has
(historically) been so effective because it utilizes the
propagandic technique of tapping into pure emotion -- before
you have a chance to contemplate the validity of the claim,
emotion shortcuts the evaluation process -- in fact, the
same irrational fear that causes the theater patron's to
trample their peers to death, is harnessed and utilized
cunningly by the contradiction, to convince *YOU*, to
trample on the freedom of speech!
BUT RICK, WITHOUT THE LIE, THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS COULD
NEVER HAVE MANIFESTED!
True, not this *EXACT* chain of events, but when people
interact, the potential for irrational behavior, which
results in injury, is always a possibility. And we would be
naive to claim that "yelling fire in a crowed theater" is
the *ONLY* speech that could ever evoke a chaotic reaction.
In fact, there are *SO* many instances where speech could
cause irrational or chaotic responses, that to limit them
all would be tantamount to silencing the entire human race
forever.
But the rabbit hole goes much deeper!
Even though we have now exposed the weakness of this "famous
contradiction", and shattered it's emotional mechanism into
tiny shards with a giant hammer, we cannot celebrate,
because we must now face the cold reality that *WE* have
tolerated implicit forms of limited speech long before the
"famous contradiction" ever raised it's ugly head. Little
inconsistencies that are impossible to reconcile with a
belief that "speech must not be limited in any way shape or
form". And while we've managed to defeat the "famous
contradiction" today, we may find that the implicit gremlins
of which i speak, are much more difficult to slay.
Freedom of speech takes on many forms. We know that it
protects our opinions, and our dissents. It allows us to
object to our government policies without fear of reprisals,
and ridicule our leaders. And more generally, helps to
foster a marketplace of ideas that are free from the
tyrannical editing of malevolents. But have we considered
the impracticality of living in a world where free speech is
used as a justification to harass and to interrupt?
RICK, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS. YOU *DON'T* HAVE A RIGHT
TO NOT BE OFFENDED.
Being offended is one thing, but being harassed and impeded
is quite another! Suppose every time a group engaged in
conversation, a third, and unwelcome party, injected
themselves into the conversation, preventing the original
participants from communicating. Or suppose you are jogging
in the park, and some asshole that happens to disagree with
your political opinions, decides to hurl obscenities at you,
constantly!
Sure, there are public disturbance laws on the books, but by
preventing these vile creatures from speaking, we are
limiting their "unfettered right to free speech". We can't
have it both ways folks. Either we are willing to restrict
speech in *SOME* circumstances, or not restrict it at all.
But no matter how we may justify our position, limiting free
speech via "public nuisance" laws is limiting free speech.
Plain and simple.
How do we reconcile this?
societies protect by law, and for those of us, like myself,
who belief deeply in the importance of maintaining this
right in its "purest fundamental form", and simultaneously
value reason, logic, and objectivity -- how do *WE* resolve
the conflicts that arise when we're confronted with the
"famous contradiction" of:
"BUT, YOU CANNOT YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER"
Many have attempted to invalidate this argument, but IMO
their attempts have utterly failed, because they only attack
the argument superficially. In the presentation that
follows, I intend to prove that there is no direct path from
the "implied cause" to the "implied tragedy", in fact, the
"implied tragedy" is merely a consequence of a greater flaw
in our collective human psychology, and *NOT* a direct
result of unfettered free speech.
So before we dissect the famous contradiction, and judge its
merits objectively, we need to define the "lines in the
sand". There are two competing opinions as to how speech
should be protected. The first is summarized as:
"SPEECH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, AND SINCE THE
INTERPRETATION OF SPEECH IS *SO* SUBJECTIVE THAT LIMITING
SPEECH BASED ON THE CONSEQUENCES THAT IT *MAY* PROVOKE IS
A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WILL ULTIMATELY DESTROY THE ENTIRE
CONCEPT -- SPEECH MUST NEVER BE LIMITED -- NOT IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM"
and the modified version as:
"YES, SPEECH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, BUT SOME FORMS OF
SPEECH ARE THE IMPETUS OF TRAGEDY, SO IN SPECIFIC
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST LIMIT SPEECH TO PROTECT THE GENERAL
PUBLIC"
The modified form argues (via the "famous contradiction")
that a pure interpretation of free speech presents two
possible consequences, and therefor must be limited because:
(1) YOU CANNOT ABUSE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO "DISTURB
THE PEACE".
In other words: you're an asshole and a coward, who is
hiding behind the protections of "free speech" to shield
yourself from the consequences of harassing innocent people.
However, the second implication is far more troubling
because its consequences are of the tragic variety:
(2) BY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER, YOU COULD SET
OFF A CHAIN REACTION OF FEAR THAT WILL RESULT IN THE
INJURY OR DEATH OF THEATER PATRONS, VIA TRAMPLING, AS THEY
ATTEMPT TO EXIT.
Both of these justifications speak of real life consequences
that can occur if we do not heed their warnings. In the
first implication, we have speech that harasses (a
nuisance), and in the second, speech that provokes (a cause
to action).
The first is easily defeated with the counter argument of:
"You have no right *NOT* to be offended", but the second is
not as easily defeated, because as we know, when humans
become overwhelmed with fear (for instance, the fear of
being burned alive), they will (generally speaking)
instinctively ignore their capacity for empathy and
compassion, and will instead, evoke the single-purposed
modality of self-preservation! This is how we end up with
gruesome tragedies where piles of people are cooked alive at
the exits of a building, when otherwise, they might have
escaped unscathed.
However, we need to ask ourselves the tough question: Who is
*ULTIMATELY* responsible for this tragedy? I implore you:
can words *alone* reach into our psyche and disable emotions
at will, causing us to loose our capacity to feel empathy
and compassion? Or cause our legs to become animated and our
feet to trample on the bodies of those who are less
physically agile than we, as though we were marionettes
dangling helplessly from the ends of strings manipulated by
malevolent beings who harbor a penchant for puppeteering
Greek Tragedy?
At what point do *WE* take responsibility for *OUR* actions
in this chain of tragic events? Can we solely blame the
asshole who yelled fire? Or must we look deep inside
ourselves and admit that, whilst yelling fire, when there is
no fire is indeed rude, abandoning compassion and trampling
our peers to death, simply to serve our own selfish goals,
might just be the ultimate form of rudeness!
The realization that, in order for the tragic consequences
of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to become reality,
not *ONLY* must the abuser of free speech make his false
statement, but the *ENTIRE* body of the theater must react
in an irrational and chaotic manner -- break *ONE* link of
the chain, and the tragedy is avoided!
So the premise that we should limit speech because "yelling
fire in a crowed theater" could result in tragedy,
incorrectly places *ALL* the blame on the asshole who did
nothing more than tell a lie. That's it, he told a lie! But
it ignores that the patrons are the *DIRECT* causation of
the injury and/or death -- the asshole is merely the
indirect cause.
This "famous contradiction" to free speech has
(historically) been so effective because it utilizes the
propagandic technique of tapping into pure emotion -- before
you have a chance to contemplate the validity of the claim,
emotion shortcuts the evaluation process -- in fact, the
same irrational fear that causes the theater patron's to
trample their peers to death, is harnessed and utilized
cunningly by the contradiction, to convince *YOU*, to
trample on the freedom of speech!
BUT RICK, WITHOUT THE LIE, THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS COULD
NEVER HAVE MANIFESTED!
True, not this *EXACT* chain of events, but when people
interact, the potential for irrational behavior, which
results in injury, is always a possibility. And we would be
naive to claim that "yelling fire in a crowed theater" is
the *ONLY* speech that could ever evoke a chaotic reaction.
In fact, there are *SO* many instances where speech could
cause irrational or chaotic responses, that to limit them
all would be tantamount to silencing the entire human race
forever.
But the rabbit hole goes much deeper!
Even though we have now exposed the weakness of this "famous
contradiction", and shattered it's emotional mechanism into
tiny shards with a giant hammer, we cannot celebrate,
because we must now face the cold reality that *WE* have
tolerated implicit forms of limited speech long before the
"famous contradiction" ever raised it's ugly head. Little
inconsistencies that are impossible to reconcile with a
belief that "speech must not be limited in any way shape or
form". And while we've managed to defeat the "famous
contradiction" today, we may find that the implicit gremlins
of which i speak, are much more difficult to slay.
Freedom of speech takes on many forms. We know that it
protects our opinions, and our dissents. It allows us to
object to our government policies without fear of reprisals,
and ridicule our leaders. And more generally, helps to
foster a marketplace of ideas that are free from the
tyrannical editing of malevolents. But have we considered
the impracticality of living in a world where free speech is
used as a justification to harass and to interrupt?
RICK, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS. YOU *DON'T* HAVE A RIGHT
TO NOT BE OFFENDED.
Being offended is one thing, but being harassed and impeded
is quite another! Suppose every time a group engaged in
conversation, a third, and unwelcome party, injected
themselves into the conversation, preventing the original
participants from communicating. Or suppose you are jogging
in the park, and some asshole that happens to disagree with
your political opinions, decides to hurl obscenities at you,
constantly!
Sure, there are public disturbance laws on the books, but by
preventing these vile creatures from speaking, we are
limiting their "unfettered right to free speech". We can't
have it both ways folks. Either we are willing to restrict
speech in *SOME* circumstances, or not restrict it at all.
But no matter how we may justify our position, limiting free
speech via "public nuisance" laws is limiting free speech.
Plain and simple.
How do we reconcile this?
Monday, June 29, 2015
Only a "perversion of logic" can lead one to believe that marriage is a "right"!
After the recent decision of the courts, i have contemplated greatly on the subject of marriage; the meaning and intent of the 14th amendment; and even the latest buzz-word: "marriage equality". I always taken a great pride in my ability to resist the ubiquitous internal weakness to "follow the herd", and this marriage debate is no different. Actually, i may be one of the very few people in this debate, who lacks even a modicum of stake in the outcome. I personally have nothing to gain, and personally nothing to loose.
Don't believe me?
Well then, allow me to introduce myself!
*FIRST* and foremost, i'm an atheist. Therefore, it should not surprise you that i don't believe marriage is "ordained by god" -- because, i don't believe such silly things -- just as i don't believe that Sasquatches exist, although i must admit, there is more compelling physical evidence of the latter, but i digress!
*SECONDLY*, i have never been, nor, will i ever subject myself to the freedom depriving nature of that evil known as "state sanctioned marriage". I'll be damned if i'm going to crawl before some slimy bureaucrat, or worst, some self-aggrandizing "messenger of god", and beg for either of them to recognize the merit of my love and commitment to another human being. I don't need anyone to grant me anything, and i sure don't need the state, or organized religion, to tell me what is "right" and what is "wrong" concerning my interpersonal relationships. They can all go to hell! Well, in a manner of speaking that is. ;-) I also feel that the concept of "state sanctioned marriage" is nothing more than wallpaper. Because without a solid substrate of love, commitment, and maturity, the marriage will inevitably fail. Therefore, the marriage becomes as worthless as the paper its printed on! It is not mere physical paper that elevates the concept of marriage to the realms of respectability -- no, i spit on your worthless paper! -- it's is the unshakable bond between lovers, and the commitment to monogamy, and one more thing that we will get to a bit later, so stay tuned!
*THIRDLY*, as far as political affiliations are concerned, i don't have any. I can equally agree with some views on the left, and some views on the right, and then, i can become totally disgusted by both sides in the same day -- welcome to modern American politics folks, *PUKE*!
*FOURTHLY*, i don't have a problem with gay people. If you want to be gay, fine, good for you. All i ask is that you act appropriately in public, but i would ask the same of my hetero brethren. I can't tell you how many times i've had to witness a hetero-couple dry humping in public. GET A ROOM ALREADY! My only complaint about the gay community is this propensity to throw sexual orientation in everyone's face, or the need to broadcast it to the ends of the known universe. Stop acting like a child already!
*FIFTHLY*, i don't have any problem with polygamous relationships. What's the big deal anyway? Are you jealous? Yeah, that must be it! But i don't practice polygamy. Never have, and probably never will -- although i must admit i do envy Mr. Hefner greatly.
No horse and no race here...
So, why do i feel that "state sanctioned marriage" should be limited to one man and one woman? Before i can answer that question, we must first contemplate the differences between a "civil privilege" and a "civil right".
Every day, many of us will drive an automobile for one reason or another, and most of us could not imagine even surviving without an automobile. But how many of us realize that operating a motor vehicle is *NOT* a right? In fact, in some circumstances, and no matter what negative consequences could arise from denying you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle, say, loss of employment; loss of housing; hunger; or even death, as the final result -- the privilege of driving can be taken away from you at any time.
This may at first seem unfair, but only the naive mind would come to that conclusion without following the trail to it's logical end. There is a very important reason why driving is a "privilege" and not a "right", and it can be summed up succinctly as "public safety". If you cannot demonstrate the ability to operate a vehicle *AND* navigate the complex interface of traffic to an acceptable degree, then you will be denied the privilege of driving. You can cry and cry that it's not fair, but a logical society cannot sacrifice life and limb of the entire community, to a small minority who cannot meet the requirements.
(Of course in modern society, there are alternatives. One can take the bus, train, or car-pool and still maintain a level of mobility. Albeit, at a lesser degree of freedom.)
Now, you may be asking yourself: "How the hell does driving relate to marriage equality". Well first of all, we need to understand why marriage is sanctioned at the state level. Specifically: "Why did the states get involved in the interpersonal relationships of their citizens anyway"? I can answer that question easily enough by evoking the same hubris (sans the illogic!) that our "beloved" Justices evoked, in which i will posit that the state originally granted the privilege of "state sanctioned marriage" to empower the respectability of "monogamous relationships" among it's citizens due to the inherent existential nature of such relationships. And since it is only from hetero-sexual relationships that offspring can be produced, it's only natural to understand why homosexual relationships were not recognized as "existential". That's all that is going on here people. The recognition of hetero-marriage is nothing more than the recognition of the dire need to reproduce, lest we, we as in "all humans", yes, even the gay folks, become extinct. Because like it or not, the brutal reality is, the survival of homosexuals is directly dependent on the survival of heterosexuals, and *NEVER* the other way around!
But lets get back to the relationship between the privilege to drive, and the privilege to have your sexual relationship sanctioned by the state. I have offered evidence that, contrary to the naive interpretations of the constitution, your privileges can be stripped away, or even denied outright *IF* you do not meet the requirements. The "marriage equality" folks would have us believe that they are being denied a "right", but despite what they may believe, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. And like all privileges, there are prerequisites.
(However, i must honestly admit that this "revelation", specifically that marriage is a privilege and not a right, may seem dangerous. How can we create a just society when any right can be converted to a privilege at will?)
My answer is simple: first we ignore the knee-jerk reaction to be an ideologue, then, we utilize our good judgement by testing the validity of "the privilege", and deciding if the privilege is violating life or liberty, or is simply just "unfair".
(1) How does hetero-marriage deny homosexuals the right
of life or liberty?
It doesn't. Homosexuals are free to engage in homosexual relationships both publicly and privately, and homosexuals are (rightfully) protected from persecution and discrimination in employment, or any other life or liberty related endeavors. In fact, the only "denial" that hetero-marriage imposes on homosexuals, is the denial to act as a heterosexual! But the irony is, the denial is *SELF-IMPOSED*. The state cannot, and rightfully so, force sexual orientation upon any of us. Neither can another citizen! We, as citizens, can choose to engage in homo or hetero relationships, and as such, if *ANY* homosexual wants to exercise his/her privilege of marriage, they need *ONLY* to meet the same requirements as *ANY* hetero would be required.
(1) Find a partner of the opposite sex.
(2) Commit to a monogamous relationship.
There is no discrimination here. Even if someone has engaged in homosexual behavior in the past, they cannot be denied the privilege of marriage *IF* they meet the two enumerated requirements. Heck, this is not even "unfair". This is simply bending logic to reach emotional ends. This whole "marriage equality" business is nothing more than one group of citizens tattle-telling to the federal government nanny that "heteros don't play fair".
CONCLUSION:
My position, simply stated, is this: i accept that homosexuals have always existed, and will *ALWAYS* exist. I also recognize that they have the right to life and liberty, because no person should ever endure persecution, but what i am not willing to accept, is the normalization or celebration of homosexual behavior. For it is a behavior that serves no benefit for our species, just as masturbation serves no productive benefit for our species. What's next, are we to celebrate masturbation? (more on that below!) Neither am i willing to accept the redefinition of an institution (marriage), that was adopted by the states specifically to recognize how our existential plight is dependent on heterosexual reproduction, and that healthy, monogamous relationships, are vital to a child's development. Contrary to popular belief, redefining traditional marriage is not a perversion of behavior, no, it's a perversion of logic!
Hypothetical food for thought (A "masturbation marriage").
If we are to believe, as the pro-gay folks have argued, that marriage is more than the fundamentally idealized concept of a "social contract to celebrate procreation", and that mere love, or infatuation, is all that should define marriage, then we are opening up the definition of marriage to many strange possibilities. For instance, consider the possibility of two partners of any sex, or combination thereof, who never engage in sex relations at all, but who's "sexual relationship" is defined by mutual masturbation. Would this "arrangement" be sufficient enough to mandate that the state recognize and celebrate such a union? Something to think about...
PS: Is there any hope that the sheeple will break free of this gas lighting? We seem to go from one "engineered conflict" to the next, all the while, our enemies are sharpening their bayonets and foaming at the mouth for a chance to destroy us. Yes *ALL* of us. They don't care if we're gay or strait, or if we're republican or democrat, or if we're from the north or the south -- they just want to destroy us. How much longer can this animosity (on a nationwide scale) continue before the "kite-string pops"? We cannot squabble internally whilst fending off external attacks simultaneously. I won't be responding to any blatant flames or trolls. However I am willing to *debate* anyone, so long as they can maintain a relative level of respect. I consider myself to be open-minded, and i'm trying to understand the plight of those who are different than me. I carry no ill-will for any person. However, I am concerned that these emotional battles are destroying our nation. We *MUST* find middle ground, and stop listening to those in the media who sensationalize everything for profit.
Don't believe me?
Well then, allow me to introduce myself!
*FIRST* and foremost, i'm an atheist. Therefore, it should not surprise you that i don't believe marriage is "ordained by god" -- because, i don't believe such silly things -- just as i don't believe that Sasquatches exist, although i must admit, there is more compelling physical evidence of the latter, but i digress!
*SECONDLY*, i have never been, nor, will i ever subject myself to the freedom depriving nature of that evil known as "state sanctioned marriage". I'll be damned if i'm going to crawl before some slimy bureaucrat, or worst, some self-aggrandizing "messenger of god", and beg for either of them to recognize the merit of my love and commitment to another human being. I don't need anyone to grant me anything, and i sure don't need the state, or organized religion, to tell me what is "right" and what is "wrong" concerning my interpersonal relationships. They can all go to hell! Well, in a manner of speaking that is. ;-) I also feel that the concept of "state sanctioned marriage" is nothing more than wallpaper. Because without a solid substrate of love, commitment, and maturity, the marriage will inevitably fail. Therefore, the marriage becomes as worthless as the paper its printed on! It is not mere physical paper that elevates the concept of marriage to the realms of respectability -- no, i spit on your worthless paper! -- it's is the unshakable bond between lovers, and the commitment to monogamy, and one more thing that we will get to a bit later, so stay tuned!
*THIRDLY*, as far as political affiliations are concerned, i don't have any. I can equally agree with some views on the left, and some views on the right, and then, i can become totally disgusted by both sides in the same day -- welcome to modern American politics folks, *PUKE*!
*FOURTHLY*, i don't have a problem with gay people. If you want to be gay, fine, good for you. All i ask is that you act appropriately in public, but i would ask the same of my hetero brethren. I can't tell you how many times i've had to witness a hetero-couple dry humping in public. GET A ROOM ALREADY! My only complaint about the gay community is this propensity to throw sexual orientation in everyone's face, or the need to broadcast it to the ends of the known universe. Stop acting like a child already!
*FIFTHLY*, i don't have any problem with polygamous relationships. What's the big deal anyway? Are you jealous? Yeah, that must be it! But i don't practice polygamy. Never have, and probably never will -- although i must admit i do envy Mr. Hefner greatly.
No horse and no race here...
So, why do i feel that "state sanctioned marriage" should be limited to one man and one woman? Before i can answer that question, we must first contemplate the differences between a "civil privilege" and a "civil right".
Every day, many of us will drive an automobile for one reason or another, and most of us could not imagine even surviving without an automobile. But how many of us realize that operating a motor vehicle is *NOT* a right? In fact, in some circumstances, and no matter what negative consequences could arise from denying you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle, say, loss of employment; loss of housing; hunger; or even death, as the final result -- the privilege of driving can be taken away from you at any time.
This may at first seem unfair, but only the naive mind would come to that conclusion without following the trail to it's logical end. There is a very important reason why driving is a "privilege" and not a "right", and it can be summed up succinctly as "public safety". If you cannot demonstrate the ability to operate a vehicle *AND* navigate the complex interface of traffic to an acceptable degree, then you will be denied the privilege of driving. You can cry and cry that it's not fair, but a logical society cannot sacrifice life and limb of the entire community, to a small minority who cannot meet the requirements.
(Of course in modern society, there are alternatives. One can take the bus, train, or car-pool and still maintain a level of mobility. Albeit, at a lesser degree of freedom.)
Now, you may be asking yourself: "How the hell does driving relate to marriage equality". Well first of all, we need to understand why marriage is sanctioned at the state level. Specifically: "Why did the states get involved in the interpersonal relationships of their citizens anyway"? I can answer that question easily enough by evoking the same hubris (sans the illogic!) that our "beloved" Justices evoked, in which i will posit that the state originally granted the privilege of "state sanctioned marriage" to empower the respectability of "monogamous relationships" among it's citizens due to the inherent existential nature of such relationships. And since it is only from hetero-sexual relationships that offspring can be produced, it's only natural to understand why homosexual relationships were not recognized as "existential". That's all that is going on here people. The recognition of hetero-marriage is nothing more than the recognition of the dire need to reproduce, lest we, we as in "all humans", yes, even the gay folks, become extinct. Because like it or not, the brutal reality is, the survival of homosexuals is directly dependent on the survival of heterosexuals, and *NEVER* the other way around!
But lets get back to the relationship between the privilege to drive, and the privilege to have your sexual relationship sanctioned by the state. I have offered evidence that, contrary to the naive interpretations of the constitution, your privileges can be stripped away, or even denied outright *IF* you do not meet the requirements. The "marriage equality" folks would have us believe that they are being denied a "right", but despite what they may believe, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. And like all privileges, there are prerequisites.
(However, i must honestly admit that this "revelation", specifically that marriage is a privilege and not a right, may seem dangerous. How can we create a just society when any right can be converted to a privilege at will?)
My answer is simple: first we ignore the knee-jerk reaction to be an ideologue, then, we utilize our good judgement by testing the validity of "the privilege", and deciding if the privilege is violating life or liberty, or is simply just "unfair".
(1) How does hetero-marriage deny homosexuals the right
of life or liberty?
It doesn't. Homosexuals are free to engage in homosexual relationships both publicly and privately, and homosexuals are (rightfully) protected from persecution and discrimination in employment, or any other life or liberty related endeavors. In fact, the only "denial" that hetero-marriage imposes on homosexuals, is the denial to act as a heterosexual! But the irony is, the denial is *SELF-IMPOSED*. The state cannot, and rightfully so, force sexual orientation upon any of us. Neither can another citizen! We, as citizens, can choose to engage in homo or hetero relationships, and as such, if *ANY* homosexual wants to exercise his/her privilege of marriage, they need *ONLY* to meet the same requirements as *ANY* hetero would be required.
(1) Find a partner of the opposite sex.
(2) Commit to a monogamous relationship.
There is no discrimination here. Even if someone has engaged in homosexual behavior in the past, they cannot be denied the privilege of marriage *IF* they meet the two enumerated requirements. Heck, this is not even "unfair". This is simply bending logic to reach emotional ends. This whole "marriage equality" business is nothing more than one group of citizens tattle-telling to the federal government nanny that "heteros don't play fair".
CONCLUSION:
My position, simply stated, is this: i accept that homosexuals have always existed, and will *ALWAYS* exist. I also recognize that they have the right to life and liberty, because no person should ever endure persecution, but what i am not willing to accept, is the normalization or celebration of homosexual behavior. For it is a behavior that serves no benefit for our species, just as masturbation serves no productive benefit for our species. What's next, are we to celebrate masturbation? (more on that below!) Neither am i willing to accept the redefinition of an institution (marriage), that was adopted by the states specifically to recognize how our existential plight is dependent on heterosexual reproduction, and that healthy, monogamous relationships, are vital to a child's development. Contrary to popular belief, redefining traditional marriage is not a perversion of behavior, no, it's a perversion of logic!
Hypothetical food for thought (A "masturbation marriage").
If we are to believe, as the pro-gay folks have argued, that marriage is more than the fundamentally idealized concept of a "social contract to celebrate procreation", and that mere love, or infatuation, is all that should define marriage, then we are opening up the definition of marriage to many strange possibilities. For instance, consider the possibility of two partners of any sex, or combination thereof, who never engage in sex relations at all, but who's "sexual relationship" is defined by mutual masturbation. Would this "arrangement" be sufficient enough to mandate that the state recognize and celebrate such a union? Something to think about...
PS: Is there any hope that the sheeple will break free of this gas lighting? We seem to go from one "engineered conflict" to the next, all the while, our enemies are sharpening their bayonets and foaming at the mouth for a chance to destroy us. Yes *ALL* of us. They don't care if we're gay or strait, or if we're republican or democrat, or if we're from the north or the south -- they just want to destroy us. How much longer can this animosity (on a nationwide scale) continue before the "kite-string pops"? We cannot squabble internally whilst fending off external attacks simultaneously. I won't be responding to any blatant flames or trolls. However I am willing to *debate* anyone, so long as they can maintain a relative level of respect. I consider myself to be open-minded, and i'm trying to understand the plight of those who are different than me. I carry no ill-will for any person. However, I am concerned that these emotional battles are destroying our nation. We *MUST* find middle ground, and stop listening to those in the media who sensationalize everything for profit.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
FINALLY: Proof That God Did Indeed Create the Universe!!!
As far as the bible is concerned, all that exists in this
universe are two distinct tangible concepts: the "heavens",
and the "Earth". So i decided to spend some time theorizing
how God could have created such a simplistic thing, and i
think i've found the practical solution by hobbling together
a beach-ball, a baseball, some LED lights, and a glass rod.
Here is how it works:
(Don't try this at home kids!)
You see, the "heavens" are a giant beach-ball, and the earth
is a baseball held in the center of this beach-ball by a
crystal clear glass rod (the rod is firmly connected to our
north pole on one end, and extends a "hands-width" out of
the top of the larger beach-ball on the other). It is via
the act of turning this "rod" that God can cause the Earth
to spin, thereby simulating day and night.
Now, even though this glass rod cannot be seen, it's
existence *CAN* be proven simply by observing the "Chandler
Wobble" inherent in earths spin, and extrapolating that --
even a God's hand cannot apply torque to an unfixed rod
without inducing some aberrations in the rod's rotational
axes.
As far as the terrestrial makeup of the earth is concerned,
the trees and grass we see are just diverse forms of mold
growing on the surface of a very old, and dirty baseball.
The mountains and valleys merely the consequence of sewing
seams. And the oceans, lakes, and rivers are nothing more
than residual saliva from when God's favorite English bull-
dog, infamously named Satan, slobbered profusely on the
baseball whilst they played catch one afternoon near the
pearly gates.
Finally, to create the illusion of the "starry heavens", God
randomly stuck a bunch of LED bulbs into the skin of the
larger beach-ball (allowing them to "peek through" so that
the humans living on the baseball could see them) For the
sun and the moon, he stuck one super-bright orange LED, and
one large white LED on opposing sides of the beach-ball.
Sadly, the universe as we know it will come to an end when
God tires of spinning the rod, and in a sudden, toddler-esque,
boredom-induced-rage, throws the beach-ball across his
bedroom and goes outside to play.
universe are two distinct tangible concepts: the "heavens",
and the "Earth". So i decided to spend some time theorizing
how God could have created such a simplistic thing, and i
think i've found the practical solution by hobbling together
a beach-ball, a baseball, some LED lights, and a glass rod.
Here is how it works:
(Don't try this at home kids!)
You see, the "heavens" are a giant beach-ball, and the earth
is a baseball held in the center of this beach-ball by a
crystal clear glass rod (the rod is firmly connected to our
north pole on one end, and extends a "hands-width" out of
the top of the larger beach-ball on the other). It is via
the act of turning this "rod" that God can cause the Earth
to spin, thereby simulating day and night.
Now, even though this glass rod cannot be seen, it's
existence *CAN* be proven simply by observing the "Chandler
Wobble" inherent in earths spin, and extrapolating that --
even a God's hand cannot apply torque to an unfixed rod
without inducing some aberrations in the rod's rotational
axes.
As far as the terrestrial makeup of the earth is concerned,
the trees and grass we see are just diverse forms of mold
growing on the surface of a very old, and dirty baseball.
The mountains and valleys merely the consequence of sewing
seams. And the oceans, lakes, and rivers are nothing more
than residual saliva from when God's favorite English bull-
dog, infamously named Satan, slobbered profusely on the
baseball whilst they played catch one afternoon near the
pearly gates.
Finally, to create the illusion of the "starry heavens", God
randomly stuck a bunch of LED bulbs into the skin of the
larger beach-ball (allowing them to "peek through" so that
the humans living on the baseball could see them) For the
sun and the moon, he stuck one super-bright orange LED, and
one large white LED on opposing sides of the beach-ball.
Sadly, the universe as we know it will come to an end when
God tires of spinning the rod, and in a sudden, toddler-esque,
boredom-induced-rage, throws the beach-ball across his
bedroom and goes outside to play.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Political Polarization and the Failure of Modern Society
Is anyone else tired of this Democrat -vs- Republican crap?
Can anyone else no longer ignore that these supposedly
"diametrically opposed" contenders are really two sides of
the same insidiously radioactive coin, and that they are
systematically licking each others boots to a showroom shine
behind the scenes?
Is anyone else unable to see that these perpetual
"ideological wars" are nothing more than malevolently
engineered "social malware", propagated by the modern day
Caesars, who toss out polarizing issues like crusty loaves
of bread to the intellectually staved masses, which results
in perpetual infantile whining from the emotional robotic
peasants:
WAH! You're wrong!
WAH! No, *YOU'RE* Wrong!
WAH! (I just want to wah so i can WAH!!!)
Am i crazy to opine for a society that focuses it's energy
towards achieving intellectual goals instead of wasting it
on churning up the same old emotional drivel time and time
again? A society that seems to now be caught in an
existential shampoo-rinse-repeat loop, flipping ass-over-tit
down the side of a steaming pile of mountainous emotional
excrement, that is extruded from the potty mouths of
innumerable whining hordes!
Am i justified in my contempt?
Society has come a long way since our native tribal
societies, but have we really improved all that much? Sure,
we've enumerated the basic fundamentals of freedom, but we
cannot escape the poison pill of our own collective
emotional baggage. Are we now witnessing the pinnacle of
free society? Is this "dystopia of dysfunction" all we can
hope for? And this "myriad of malaise" the unavoidable
result from that realization?
Is realityTV, gossip columns, drama porn, and fetishistic
fascinations with the size of KK's buttocks really something
we should be proud of? Is there any hope that man will
utilize his faculty of reason to guide his hand through all
the drool and muck, to find, and finally flip, the off-
switch on this "orb-of-confusion", that has him trapped in a
perpetual "Patrick mode"?
Or are my laments merely wishful fantasies masquerading as a
masochistic academic exercise?
YOU TELL ME...
Can anyone else no longer ignore that these supposedly
"diametrically opposed" contenders are really two sides of
the same insidiously radioactive coin, and that they are
systematically licking each others boots to a showroom shine
behind the scenes?
Is anyone else unable to see that these perpetual
"ideological wars" are nothing more than malevolently
engineered "social malware", propagated by the modern day
Caesars, who toss out polarizing issues like crusty loaves
of bread to the intellectually staved masses, which results
in perpetual infantile whining from the emotional robotic
peasants:
WAH! You're wrong!
WAH! No, *YOU'RE* Wrong!
WAH! (I just want to wah so i can WAH!!!)
Am i crazy to opine for a society that focuses it's energy
towards achieving intellectual goals instead of wasting it
on churning up the same old emotional drivel time and time
again? A society that seems to now be caught in an
existential shampoo-rinse-repeat loop, flipping ass-over-tit
down the side of a steaming pile of mountainous emotional
excrement, that is extruded from the potty mouths of
innumerable whining hordes!
Am i justified in my contempt?
Society has come a long way since our native tribal
societies, but have we really improved all that much? Sure,
we've enumerated the basic fundamentals of freedom, but we
cannot escape the poison pill of our own collective
emotional baggage. Are we now witnessing the pinnacle of
free society? Is this "dystopia of dysfunction" all we can
hope for? And this "myriad of malaise" the unavoidable
result from that realization?
Is realityTV, gossip columns, drama porn, and fetishistic
fascinations with the size of KK's buttocks really something
we should be proud of? Is there any hope that man will
utilize his faculty of reason to guide his hand through all
the drool and muck, to find, and finally flip, the off-
switch on this "orb-of-confusion", that has him trapped in a
perpetual "Patrick mode"?
Or are my laments merely wishful fantasies masquerading as a
masochistic academic exercise?
YOU TELL ME...
Friday, January 16, 2015
Warning: Religion can scar you for life!
BREAKING FREE OF A RELIGIOUS PSYCHOSIS:
For years i had been perched precariously on the fence between theism and atheism. Attempting desperately to conflate the emotions i was "required" to feel towards God, with the logical processes of my brain telling me that the whole thing was just a ruse. And even though I already knew from a very young age what side of the fence i was gravitating towards, the emotional bonds of religion are so strong, that i could not find the inner strength to break them... well, at least not until recently!
The final nail in my "religious coffin" has been witnessing the rise of religious extremism around the world (beginning with 9/11 and now the event in Paris), in which i see the *TRUE* manifestation of religion's hidden agenda, which is: division, intolerance, and subjugation.
So after fighting vehemently against my own logic, and attempting to convince myself (foolishly) that the brainwashed emotional illusions i had been taught were somehow "real", I realize now that i cannot fight the truth any longer, and have come to the conclusion that religious ideologies are the most destructive force that has ever existed in the history of mankind. And now that I've freed myself of this psychosis, let my story be a testament so that others don't have to suffer through the psychological *HELL* that i have!
IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS INNOCENCE:
As all "loving" parents tend to do, mine indoctrinated me into Christianity the day i was born. And even though attendance was not optional in my family (the only acceptable excuse for missing mass was life threatening illness or injury), my earliest memories of the church are good memories. To me, church was an activity with the extended family: we would listen to a gentle old man's lecturing; then eat a big meal; then meet and play with other kids, and maybe go for ice cream afterwards. Standard "wholesome" family behaviors.
Of course, these communal behaviors play two insidious roles: (1) They project "innocence" to outsiders and/or potential new members (2) They mold the members into a homogeneous block. A block in which instinctual mimicking and the emotional need to belong will later be used as *WEAPONS* to subdue the innate inquisitiveness of the human mind when inconsistencies arise in their ideology -- oh yeah, peer pressure. It's an effective tool baby!
A "GENTILE" INTRODUCTION TO HATE:
Children were not allowed to attend adult mass (which was the first few hours of every Sunday service), so the children would be hustled off to something innocently referred to as "Sunday School", where we could learn about the "benevolent exploits" of man named Jesus. And i remember that we would always sing a little song titled: "Jesus loves the little children" (how could i forget! This infectious little "jingle from hell" has been burned into my psyche!). And it was in the lyrics of this very song, that my first conflict with religion manifested itself.
Jesus Loves the little children...
All the children of the world...
Red and yellow, black and white...
They are precious in his sight...
Jesus loves the little children of the world.
As i was singing the third line of the song, i looked around the room and noticed something peculiar: that only one race of children were in my class. I found this to be strange. Then later, when i attended mass, i noticed that everyone in the whole church was the same race! How could this be? I asked myself: where are the churches with the red and yellow and black and white kids singing glories to Jesus? After questioning teachers and parents, the best answer i could get out of them was : "Well, they have their churches and we have our churches". I then understood for the first time in my life the concepts of "racism", "segregation" and "hypocrisy" -- even if i did not yet know how to spell them!
THE REVELATION OF SELFISH DIVISIONS:
The next epiphany occurred somewhere in my early teen years when I had started to notice that Christianity was divided into numerous denominations. When i asked parents or teachers what goes on inside these mysterious "other churches" they would always warn: "Oh, they are crazy because they do X, Y, Z. But we don't believe in that because we do A, B, C".
Of course in my mind i realized the hypocrisy of such logic: Surely if we thought of them as crazy, then they must also have considered us as crazy. So these mutually exclusive conclusions were based purely on emotion and not logic.
Note: That little internal voice is telling me that something is wrong here!
In a similar manner, the existence of religions outside of Christianity contradicted the teachings of our church. From our perspective, *WE* worshiped the one-and-only-true-god, and only those who worshiped our god would be allowed entry into paradise; all others would suffer the flames of Hell!
After noticing that the members of other religious organizations were not much different than myself, i could not reconcile how a supposedly "benevolent God" could send folks to an eternal fire pit based solely on the superficiality of an organizational symbol? And furthermore, how could i be absolutely sure that i was a member of the "one-true-god's" religion? Surely the Jews and Muslims and Hindus and blah-blah-blah were just as sure as we were. But what if *I* was wrong? What if *I* was being mislead?
After noticing that the members of other religious organizations were not much different than myself, i could not reconcile how a supposedly "benevolent God" could send folks to an eternal fire pit based solely on the superficiality of an organizational symbol? And furthermore, how could i be absolutely sure that i was a member of the "one-true-god's" religion? Surely the Jews and Muslims and Hindus and blah-blah-blah were just as sure as we were. But what if *I* was wrong? What if *I* was being mislead?
THE SICK TRUTH FINALLY REVEALED:
Religions prey on illiterates and emotional weaklings, and they seduce them with these false emotional ideologies. Because only a monster would deny an "ideology of love" right?(<--sarcasm). But the love is just a facade. A facade to disguise the layers of hate seething below the surface. They *NEED* to have someone to hate, someone to point their dirty little finger at and say:
"See, THEY are wrong, but WE are right. WE are Gods chosen people, therefor WE are special. Therefore, WE are justified by destroying THEM"But they never allow you to make rational decisions based on observable facts, no, instead they brow beat you into submission and force you to accept their false teaching simply based on emotional faith. They will lash you with your own guilt and sorrow until you're unable to fight back, These are the tools utilized by the tyrannical, and should be evidence of the inherent evil that is called by the name "religion".
I believe emotions have always been "necessary evil" for man's survival. Especially in the primitive stages of evolution where reason and logic had not yet maintained a firm footing. In these early stages, lifeforms have no choice but to rely on the basic "modality of emotion" in order to navigate their world. But if these emotions are not properly managed, and their dangers not completely understood, they can be the "bane" of advanced lifeforms such as ourselves.
Religion, under the "clout of love", hones man's emotions into finely tuned weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that will be used, under the guidance of tyrannical teachings, to destroy external opposition and maintain absolute compliance within the herd group.
If you as an adult wish to deny your own reason, and become the subject of a tyrannical organization that intends to create an emotionally dependent and intellectually inept slave of you, then by all means you are free to do so. But as my experience has shown, children should not be exposed to religion. In fact, it is my firm belief that indoctrination of children into *ANY* religion is a form of abuse. Abuse that should result in the parents loosing custody of the children -- as they've clearly demonstrated they are beings ruled by emotion with no capacity for rational judgement!
A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS HORDES:
My equal condemnation of all religious ideologies will no doubt elicit rebukes from the self righteous who believe that by not engaging in the "extremes of religion", that they are "somehow" above the crimes of the extremists. And whilst i congratulate you for not acting out violently towards those who don't share your "emotional faiths", i am here to tell you that you are *NOT* innocent by any means. Even though you do not support or resort to explicit acts of violence against your fellow man, you are in fact committing implicit acts against *ALL* mankind -- since your teachings are a direct repression of man's "faculty of reason".
CONCLUSION:
Even though i have long since conquered the corrupting influences of the religious brain washing i suffered as a young child, i will have to bear the psychological scars of this indoctrination for the remainder of my life. The only positive outcome from this experience has been that I've gained a deep insight into the dark heart of man, and with that insight, i can warn others about the dangers of these "organizations of love".
We must constantly fight against, and ultimately defeat, the weakness that are inherent in our cognitive processes, because if we do not build strong mental defenses against liars, cheats and con-men, the malevolents of the world will use these weakness against us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)