The astonishing thing (or perhaps not these days) about the Ferguson drama is that the position most of my 'liberal' friends who posted about it took was essentially that they wanted a police officer to be charged with wrongdoing, despite the evidence being to the contrary, on the grounds that he's white and therefore must be guilty.
Now that a mixed race grand jury has formed a view, clearly reflecting both the physical evidence and the bulk of the (largely African-American) witness testimony from the more reliable end of the spectrum, the talk is of conspiracy.
In both the initial assumption and the reaction to the verdict, those desperately pushing the race narrative have unwittingly exposed themselves as substantially racist.
While there are many genuine cases of police racism and brutality, this wasn't one of them, and trying to bring down an officer for doing his job in tackling a violent criminal can only possibly be damaging to the cause of justice. It is the left who erroneously stoked the flames of racism and the fear of prejudice which, pre-primed thugs aside, precipitated the riots.
Will they now apologise? Unlikely. Even if they admit this reality, they will probably still, without any sense of irony, blame racism of whites for causing the young man to behave in the way he did. And as for looting McDonald's in response, well... Monsanto, obviously.
First of all, let me state that there is nothing here that excuses violence against women. Violence is a choice regardless of anyone's inclinations, and not only are the occasions where it becomes justified few and far between, but violence against women in particular would run counter to the argument below. .... "There is no scientific evidence to suggest that boys and girls, men and women, are wired differently at all." - A quote from a left-wing feminist interlocutor today.
What a crazy claim. As a matter of fact, it's just false. There is a huge amount of evidence, a meta analysis of which confirms that the quoted statement is nonsense. Unfortunately for the whims of Guardian readers, preference has no place in determining scientific fact.
The claim itself was intended to reinforce her suggestion that the difference in average male and female positions in society is purely down to one group (men) abusing another (women), and men who disagree are "weak, pathetic, and drips" who "fear" women.
It may be that differences in the brain are a consequence of nurture more than nature, but to assume that to be the case ignores the role of males in human evolution.
Being a human male is a far riskier prospect than being a human female. The chance that as a human male, you will meet with an untimely violent death is much higher than for a female, and it always has been. To increase the likelihood of their genes' survival, males have faced a clear pressure to evolve differently; towards an ability to cope with hardship of a violent nature at least long enough to mate and probably through early childhood - until the point a male's genes benefit more by him attempting a second round. (Yes women are more likely to be raped or abused, but that is neither here nor there in terms of developing sex differences because it's gene survival that counts).
If the male role is to take the bigger risk, and typically it is, then that may well explain why a tendency towards expectation of a larger reward built up. Larger rewards encourage accepting greater risks. That would have been reinforced by the increased male capacity to collect on that reward socially.
Females on the other hand make the far higher material investment through child rearing. Not only is it somewhat incapacitating but it requires more energy and time (the cost of failure is lower for a male). That means that to protect their investment, it pays to have the males take on a greater share of the risk. In that sense, not only do females tolerate male risk taking/ aggression/ dominance, but they actively exploit it in engineering a situation that benefits their genes. In order to spare females from higher risk, they required males to be stronger, faster, possessing of larger and denser relevant brain structures, more prepared for hunting and fighting. If the presence of these qualities increase the danger from rivals, it increases the demand for them in a spiraling effect up until the point it ceases to be a significant advantage for the genes' propagation. Far from being a male dominated society engineered by men to their advantage, male are born into a violent world because of the purpose it serves. Around the world there are numerous worthy efforts to oppose violence against women. One such effort was the #BringBackOurGirls social media campaign in response to the abduction of hundreds of girls by the Islamist group, Boko Haram. A noble cause, no doubt - those girls will be horribly brutalised - yet with extremely few exceptions, all of the major news organisations neglected to mention that the group also abducts thousands of boys. Those boys are forced to kill and be killed. It is as if there is an assumption that because males are killed predominantly by males, that males are to blame and so are unworthy of sympathy or consideration. Women, by contrast apparently have nothing to do with the violent world they find themselves in. This is complete nonsense.
Patriarchy in humans isn't a product of fear of female independence or power, or Guardian inspired, victimhood fetishised, psychobabble notions of inadequacy, it's the product of an evolutionarily stable strategy. What's happening now is that technology, first in agriculture, then military (and probably then birth control and health), is allowing greater shares of the risk to be outsourced. If males take less risk, they need less incentive, in which case, females can expect to reduce their costs in the relationship (e.g. cultural oppression). Empathy aside, this is probably a shift that is welcome to most males with the capacity for it; afterall, being essentially farmed for violence comes with its drawbacks. Also unfortunate is that evolution of the brain cannot keep up with technological change. Genes favouring brains adapted to violence no longer gain an advantage and genes favouring the new arrangement prosper, so given sufficient time and pressure, the average male tendency for the old order may subside. One of the main reasons why oppression of women is more prevalent in religious cultures (including that driving Boko Haram) is not just because codifying it in scripture enforces it, although that's true too, but because religion stunts scientific and intellectual advancement and thus fundamentally blocks the transformation of material needs that would then propel cultural change.
It's perfectly reasonable for women to make new demands based on new needs, and those males who can adapt will do well, but although those females with an alternative means for protection and acquisition of resources may reasonably want males to work differently, it is not reasonable to condemn male tendencies as flawed, "weak", "pathetic" or evil for simply being what was required of them by women (within a reasonable range) until extremely recently in the West, and in many parts of the world still is. Recognition of this doesn't preclude advocacy for a new arrangement or opposition to violence or oppression in general - the opportunity for disseminating technology and democracy, which provides the most stable environment within which to maximise the benefits of the technology, means that the global success of womens movements benefits humanity as a whole - but rather than fetishising victimhood and blindly denying sex-based difference, understanding the reality of it might actually help expediate a transition with less resistance to a more equal state of affairs.
I wish the Scots the best of luck with their independence! Salmond's socialist Scots slaves: cannae travel freely, without border controls, into the UK (we will need to protect ourselves against their illegal immigration when they collapse their economy) and the EU (British nationals, not Scottish nationals, are EU members and can travel and work freely in the EU); cannae join the EU because they lack their own central bank and thus can have no control over monetary policy; cannae keep the pound formally because the Bank of England and UK taxpayers will not prop up their profligacy (noo jist haud on! You want independence and a 'bastard English' lender of last resort? Yer bum's oot the windae!); cannae fund their hand-outs (sorry, "social justice" in Scottish) when the SNP discover their dream of being the next Venezuela - because things went so well there - falls apart when the imaginary oil fails to materialise under the North Sea; and cannae generate a revenue from all those who desperately flee that sinking ship when the massive unemployment starts. They could always try selling more whisky I suppose, but clearly they're already mad wi' it from drinking too much of their own product. Oh, and let's not forget that in their political isolation, they'll be giving up any ability to influence other states or massive corporations (I wonder how long it would take severe corruption to take hold in this SNP utopia), or to deal with any global security issues (maybe the jihadists will see that they've run away and stop trying to blow up Glasgow airport? - yer dinnae ken? Ock naw! - probably not).
When Scotland eventually does set up a stable-ish central bank and new currency, it will be many years away, by which time the poverty and debt will have skyrocketed. Only then will they be able to join the EU and hand over all of their new found William Wallacey 'freedom' - if you can call destitution and socialism that - to proudly become the Eurocrats' latest poor and insignificant slave province. And that's if and only if, every single member state agrees to allow them to join, which would require Spain to do something that would encourage the breakup of Spain. With Alex Salmond, the crabbit wee scunner, as their commander-in-chief, what could possibly go wrong?
That is the reality of what they would be voting for, and if they do, are they really the calibre of people we want roaming the UK? Half of them, maybe; probably far fewer. After all this, they'll still be irrationally blaming the 'bastard English' for all the problems they habitually cause themselves. Are we "Better Together"? I don't know, probably, but it's painfully clear they are better off being British! If they want to throw it all away in a hysterical fit, it's entirely up to them. Still, if it means they can get away from those 'evil Tories' in Westminster and their evil capitalist prosperity and liberty, it will be worth all the shite in the world, right? Dunderheids. Oh well, whit's fur ye'll no go by ye.
So here we are again. Another day, another Richard Dawkins Twitter
outrage. This time it's about the morality involved in knowingly choosing to
have a child with Down syndrome. Dawkins had the audacity to state his view in
reply to a question that the moral thing to do would be to abort and try again.
Naturally this being Twitter, one does not have the luxury of expounding on
philosophical points of view; however, even before Dawkins' apology and
explanation (you can read it here), it ought to have been a matter of a two second consideration to be
able to imagine the line of thinking. I’ll put forward mine quickly before
moving on to the main point of this post.
At the point at which a mother would discover through testing that
her offspring has Down syndrome, the offspring would not be remotely close to
the blurry lines of personhood. Even if it was one's determination to attribute
personhood at this stage, it's hardly important beyond the realm of religiously
conjured ethics anyway, and if that’s your case then your problems go deeper
than what’s addressed here. What matters in the real world is suffering. At the
time of an abortion, a foetus would not have the capacity to suffer. It would
not have a conception of suffering even if it could. It would have no
historicity to protect. And it would have no capacity for any preference on the
matter whatsoever. For that reason, when a mother learns that her offspring has
the incorrect number of chromosomes (in this case, 21), from that point in time
she has a choice. Assuming she wants a baby, should she bring a new life into
the world with severe disabilities, or should she bring a new life into the
world without disabilities? Remember, the starting point of the dilemma is at
the point of knowing the diagnosis, assuming the matter of concern is the
welfare of the potential child. The investment made either physically or
emotionally before that point is irrelevant to that concern and only has a part
to play in the case of total selfishness in the agenda of the mother, e.g. “I
want a child now”. Again, the choice is simple, should she choose to have disabled baby, or
choose to have a fully able baby? If one accept that the more moral action is
to give her offspring the best possible chance at a long and healthy life to
the fullest of human potential, then one also would have to accept that the
more moral choice would be to abort. The extent of the likely scale of
disability that comes with Down syndrome is not the determining factor; it
merely amplifies the extent of the moral case. For the same reason, the fact
that some people with Down syndrome lead relatively able lives (Hu Yizhou from the China Disabled Peoples Performing Art Troupe, being one example)ought not to be
a factor in the decision. This is not about accepting or valuing disabled people, this is about not actively choosing to create disability in the first place.
With that two second thought process out of the way, it is clear
that if one’s morality is based on causing the least amount of suffering, then
the tweet from Richard Dawkins would indeed qualify as true (in fact, I don't believe
there is such a thing as a true moral statement, but that’s a discussion for
another time). Thankfully, for those of us who would rather less suffering, it
would appear that most women in that situation would make a similar judgement
because they do indeed tend to abort and try again, thus causing less suffering
than they would be likely to otherwise.
Now on to the irritating point of all this.
What then proceeded to occur on Twitter and, of course, on
Facebook, was the customary hysteria. In Dawkins' apology, he categorised the
main types of responses and their motivations (I advise you to double check
what they were so I don't have to repeat them) but there is one group that he
appeared to leave out - explicitly at least - and it is the one group that I
seem to notice crawling out from their intellectually dingy holes every time
something of this nature happens. First we get the statement of fact or
reasonable judgement from Dawkins (this includes the cause of the last outrage
when the swine had the raw nerve to suggest that saying one thing is worse than
another thing within a category does not mean that one condones either), then we
get the outrage from those who suddenly find themselves in the uncomfortable
position of having to deal with reality, and then, as certain as day-break, we
get the enemies of reason, in their vast hordes, leaping up excitedly, ready to
re-grind their axes, exclaiming, "See! I told you Dawkins is a bastard
(therefore everything he says is void, evidence or not)!" These people
don't care whether or not the statement is true, whether it's supported by
reason, whether there's an array of evidence behind it, all they care about is
scoring a propaganda point for their cause. Their cause is nearly always
irrational, frequently religious, and very often sinister.
Those people, together with the groups identified by Dawkins, make
up the vast majority of the internet outrage. They are all expected. They are
an irritation, but even they are not what concerns me most. I am concerned more
by those who claim to happen to agree with Dawkins, but then align against him
and even the point at hand, because they believe they will score some brownie points
by criticising the directness of his method. If you agree with the statement
but then join in with the ad hominem against it, then you are an intellectual
coward. By saying that you're an atheist, for example, but that you don't
support the behaviour of atheists who don't capitulate to religious censorship,
then you're an intellectual coward. You do not get any points for trying to
present an image of yourself to others as someone special because you have the
decency to keep your thoughts to yourself, truth be damned. You certainly do
not get any points for desiring to be so liberal that you will avoid facts and
reason, and even seek to socially censor both, just in case it steps on the
toes of one group or another that doesn't happen to react kindly to facts and
reason. That makes you... no, not a nicer person... an intellectual coward.
Furthermore, that is also precisely what you become when you claim that someone
ought to keep their mouth shut on an issue with which you assume they have no
personal experience. It is censorship, it’s fallacious, and it's the product of
a weak and feeble mind.
When discussing whether or not Jesus really was a magical being, Christians and their apologists frequently tell me that it matters less than the moral teachings of this character. They claim he is someone we should all look up to. In response, I inform them that from my perspective, the Jesus character is one of the most horrid in all fiction. They are typically stunned and ask me to justify my statement. To save me from having to repeat myself every time, I shall expound on it here.
It's by no means a unique view. If you read the New Testament free from Christian brainwashing, it is fairly easy to come to. No doubt Christians will either continue to dismiss it, or their heads may explode, I'm not sure which.
The Jesus character said he came not to bring peace, but a sword. He said those who don't listen to him will face worse than the Old Testament horrors when Judgement day comes (judgement by him or his father depending on your view of the Trinity - for those who do believe in the Trinity, Jesus must by necessity also be as nasty as God). He said to people that if they love their families more than him they aren't worthy (classic Charles Manson or any other cult leader).
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Matthew 10:34-35, Luke 12
He's certainly not against violence and tyranny, according to the divinely inspired Revelations he'll be doing a fair bit of it himself when he returns, dressed in blood soaked clothes to smite nations with the sword protruding from his mouth before he seeks to establish his rule with an iron rod, killing all who stands in his way.
He says that his is the only way to avoid this fate and yet he purposely talks in confusing stories, supposedly so those who are ready to go along with it will understand; that isn't much different from the cold calling that spiritualist quacks do. People will clutch at vague ideas, read something into it, and the stupid ones will think it is profound and him their savior. He also says he trips them up so he can then save them. He'll speak plainly to his cult's officers though. Classic con artist.
When criticised by Jews for not eating hygienically as per tradition, Jesus' response was to call them hypocrites for not putting to death their children who did not honour their parents, as per the word of God. Clearly they touched a raw nerve. Matthew 15, Mark 9
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Matthew 19:29. Again with the forsaking of family. This time he decided to include children. Child neglect is a crime and a disgrace. In the same chapter he's busy giving people unsound financial advice. Given how much of a threat family is to him, and how poor his grasp on economics is and how his ideas would inevitably lead to more poverty, he seems a lot like a leftist. You'd think he'd be less popular on the economic right.
When he came across a man supposedly possessed, rather than simply banish the demon, he pushed it into 2000 pigs and drove them off a cliff into the sea. Basically, he turned up at a place, lied to a man with mental health issues and then destroyed thousands of livestock, pretended he did them a favour, and then buggered off. The man is a menace. Clearly not too fond of animals either.
In Mark 11:13-21 Jesus spots a fig tree so off he goes for fruit (you'd think he'd understand seasons, but clearly he's not too bright) but the tree hasn't produced the fruit yet. In effect his response was to say that if he can't have fig, no one can, so he destroyed the tree.
Obviously his wickedness has its limits. For example, he didn't look too kindly on people thinking they could do bad things when he's not looking, such as beating their slaves (the old and new testaments fully and explicitly endorse slavery) in a drunken orgy. For those people he'll come when they least expect it and cut them in sunder and deal with them like the unbelievers. Luke 12:45-46
The vast immorality of Jesus can be represented by "take no thought for the morrow". Matthew 6:34. This is his primary doctrine. He's either deluded or wicked. Take a few minutes to watch Christopher Hitchens' take on the matter.
Jesus was psychotic, he was a dangerous narcissist, a megalomaniac, manipulative, a poisonous pædagogue, and given the more pleasant utterings he made, he clearly suffered from some form of multiple personality disorder. Now, let's be fair to Jesus, this wouldn't all be his fault; Jesus was clearly a very mentally ill person. That being said, he's still no one to look up to, and he's certainly no one people should use as a positive role model. By any rational modern standard, Jesus is one of the most disturbing characters in the whole of fiction.
The astonishing thing (or perhaps not these days) about the Ferguson drama is that the position most of my 'liberal' friends who posted about it took was essentially that they wanted a police officer to be charged with wrongdoing, despite the evidence being to the contrary, on the grounds that he's white and therefore must be guilty. 
