Saturday, March 16, 2013

Dawkins Pigs Out.

Richard Dawkins is lacking attention, apparently. He seems desperate to pimp his new book. He has decided to make outrageously stupid statements to help him garner the attention he is lacking. Consider his latest tweet:

"With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig".
Now, now, Richard, your desperation is truly pitiful.

This is a conclusion without any premises. It is not an argument it is a papal encyclical. It is a declaration of belief without any evidence, without any empirical support much less any rational, deductive syllogistic argumentation. In short, it is blind belief type of religious nonsense.

Let’s count the ways:

1. Adult pigs are not in possession of human DNA.

2. Adult pigs (nor pigs at any stage of development) will ever, ever, ever, ever turn into humans at any stage of human development.

3. Although female Atheists might consider Dawkins a Male Chauvinist Pig, that designation is purely in honor of his porcine resemblance in attitude and not in genetics.

4. His statement is a dictum of degradation and devaluation from a position of arrogance and presumed elitist superiority to all other humans, whom he is at liberty to compare to other animals, lower life forms, or minerals as he declares them available for elimination as is convenient.

5. This is the same Dawkins who could find no moral basis for declaring that “Hitler was wrong”.

6. This is the same Dawkins who very cowardly protected his own life by “…not knowing much about the God of Islam” when pressed for a position on Al Jazeera. He always has courageous positions about Christianity, of course. Abortion of himself is not as issue, since he didn’t have his own skull scissor-stabbed and crushed, and his arms ripped off to ease the abortion.

7. This is the same Dawkins who considers himself to be a biologist and evolutionary expert/hero; so he probably knows that a pig is not more human than “any fetus”, since a pig is not human under any interpretation, even the loose interpretations of evolution. So he is declaring rather that a fetus is in no manner a human, regardless of the fact that it is alive and growing; it is a fully defined individual human with its unique human DNA; all humans (1) are unique and go through the stages from fertilized egg through developmental transitions to birth, and onward.

Richard Dawkins has stepped on himself, but it likely will be hardly noticed amongst his aficionados. Logic is not their bag. Conclusions without premises is what works for them.

(1) Split cell twins, etc. excepted, of course.

ADDENDUM:

In a subsequent tweet, Dawkins clarifies his criteria for being human vs. non-human:

“Human” features relevant to the morality of abortion include ability to feel pain, fear etc & to be mourned by others.
Dawkins has added one incredibly revealing feature: "to be mourned by others". The fact that Dawkins adds this indicates that he actually believes that the loss of certain classes of preborn humans cannot be mourned. Cannot be. His presumptuousness is massively arrogant. He knows no such thing. And I personally know differently; all it takes is observation of living things (an empirical approach apparently not familiar to evolutionists). (1) This criterion is too absurd to be considered a rational statement. What it reveals is the callousness and the total lack of empathy which Dawkins has, not just for the preborn human, but also for the adult humans who lose preborns. Let's repeat: total lack of empathy. And let's add this: total ignorance of the psychology surrounding the death of preborns, including mourning.

These criteria, of course, can be applied to postnatal humans too, under certain circumstances. For instance, anyone who is under sedation. (2) And Trotsky likely never felt anything when the icepick ended his human existence.

The abortion lovers will continue to word-shop around for terminology which they think suffices to allow them to devalue humans. The fact is that they are engaged in devaluing living, unique, growing human individuals at necessary and therefore legitimate stages of human development. They do this using false intellectualism and false moral declarations, the exact tactics of totalitarians.

The specious arguments made by the abortionistas illuminates how desperate they are to preserve eugenics and their right to devalue humans to enable their killing. They are passionate in their defense of eugenics to the point of demonstrating fully that their passion completely destroys their remnants of rationality.

(1) I had a cow that miscarried twins at a very early stage of development. She was hysterical, and went berserk when I tried to remove them. So I left them there for a while for her to mourn. She licked them and licked them, and hours later she was still at it.

(2) which is transparently why Dawkins added the absurd “mourning” requirement, while neglecting the unintended consequences of adding that criterion, which in turn demonstrates that it is ideology and not biological science.


You Are Here: The State of State Control

A graphical representation of our position in history is given at Zero Hedge. The relative positioning is related to the books, "1984", by George Orwell, and "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. These books were not required reading in school back when they came out, yet everyone I knew read them and discussed them along with Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies amongst many others. I don't know if the subsequent generations of maleducated and low information Americans have read them, or have even heard of them. I doubt they are on youtube or are mentioned by the comics from which the Left gets their information to live by. These books are not about rainbows and tolerance of absolutely everything but criticism. Well, they sort of are, actually, except for rainbows.

On a semirelated note, Bill Mahr is threatening to bolt from California due to taxes... But Bill, taxes are the blood flow of the Left; you gotta love taxes! Wait, I get it. Taxes are for other people: for the masses.

Friday, March 15, 2013

The Freedom From Religion Foundation Pursues Atheism as the Official Worldview of the USA

The FFRF is suing (what else?) to have the motto "In God We Trust" removed from American Currency.

The FFRF is desperate to establish the Atheistic (aka secularist) worldview as the official worldview of the USA. Presumably that would include the concept of a flexible constitiution, except for those priciples which they actually care about, which are strictly interpreted, even falsely restrictive.

The FFRF has previously sued to stop the teaching of the principles of positive character, and has pursued smaller civil governments regarding their city logos, even their names (Santa ..., for example). They have used the excuse that even seeing religious-esque things gives them heartburn and gas, such as the I-beams at the World Trade Center which were reduced to a cross shape. These are the American Tolerati, who wet themselves at the thought that anyone would have a worldview different from theirs.

The AtheoSecularists have done such a wonderful job at providing a morally disciplined culture with highly educated citizens so far, one wonders what will be left of it, if anything, when they are finally done scrubbing all vestiges of actual moral principles from all public venues, including producing their demand for an amoral government (already in place) and generations of amoral, maleducated, low information citizens (also already in place).

The future is in their hands.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Letter To a Friend; a Review

[It seems like a good time to repost this letter, originally from 9-28-11]

I have a question for you. Can you think of anything which is True? I don't mean "true" in the sense that a statement reflects the actuality of the fact it represents, for example, "There is a truck parked in the driveway", when in fact there really is a truck parked in the driveway. That is called the Correspondence Theory of Truth". That is not what I mean.

The Truth to which I refer is a truth that is constant, unchanging, and universal. This truth is outside the power of humans to change, to modify, or to deny rationally. I can give some examples.

First is the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. If this seems too simplistic, consider this: these symbols represent a relationship that is universal; constant; unchanging. In fact they are trans-universal, because they would be true in any rational universe. Mathematics is the discovery of such universal truths. And no amount of arguing will change their truth value, so they are absolute: absolute Truths.

Another one is the existence of life. Now this might seem to be self-evident, but within Atheism, it no longer is a given. Under Atheism and its progeny, Philosophical Materialism, nothing exists except material reality, and those material things all behave by responding to Cause and Effect. Humans are no exception. So when Atheists are pushed to the limit, they must take the position that humans are deterministic and their behaviors are controlled by a chain of preceding physical events going clear back to the origin of the universe. So there can be no free will, if Materialism is valid; and if Materialism is valid, then Atheism is valid.

In order to protect Materialism and Atheism, free will cannot be allowed to exist; free will would mean that man is an "uncaused causer", able to defy prior causation and able to make rocks go uphill merely by exercising his will to create the conditions for it to happen. Humans would be "uncaused causers", because they cause events merely by will, rather than by previous history of accumulated events causing the next event.

An uncaused causer is a defeat for materialism.

But these Truths do exist, to the mind unencumbered with prohibitive ideologies. And because Truths exist which are universal, constant and unchanging, Truths which are absolute, then the idea of the existence of absolutes is also True.

But Atheists must deny absolutes in any form, because under Cause and Effect (Materialism), absolutes must also have a cause. And the cause of an absolute would be an absolute, too. An absolute creator of absolutes is denied outright.

As you observed, Atheists have to think themselves into corners of irrational concepts in order to preserve their ideology.

One of the outcomes of the atheist denial of absolutes is that logic, without an absolute basis in First Principles or axioms, is totally relative. Logic can slip and slide around and be made to fit the non-absolutist's opinion. And everything produced by Atheists and Materialists is therefore just non-logical opinion, based on no absolutes and no experimental science.

The entire subject of a non-material existence which is outside and beyond physical existence falls outside the purview of Materialism. Materialism merely denies such existence; denial is not a proof, neither experimental nor logical.

Observation of the existence of mathematics, logic, and life is a view into something which is outside of Materialism, yet something which is absolute. The deniers deny it at their own hazard: an irrational worldview.

Ask your deniers what their absolute basis for denial might be. If there is none, then why do they think it is True?

I hope this helps at least some. Please continue to ask any questions
you might have,
Stan

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Moderation Is On Again

If you want to tell us why you are special and are morally entitled, morally authorized, and morally enabled to devalue other humans into subhuman status, and then declare them suitable for killing for the convenience of others, then your comment will be published.

If you want to explain how you became a moral and intellectual elite, then your comment will be published.

If you just want to justify the human devaluation process you have chosen, then don't bother, I won't publish it.

If you have other topics, they will be considered.