Greetings,
I am writing to file a complaint regarding the following employee of Morgan State University: DeWayne Wickham. The main focus of my complaint is one of journalistic malpractice, where this man who's the head of the journalism department in my view advocates for the murder of artists - such as the artists recently murdered at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
A journalist should report the facts, not censor them. It's not your job to treat religion and cults with kid gloves, or to "protect" people from well-founded honest opinions about religions and cults.
Recently Mr. Wickham published the following article in USA Today:
Wickham: 'Charlie Hebdo' crosses the line
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/19/charlie-hebdo-cross-line-free-speech-covers-islam-limits-wickham/21960957/
Here's my reply to that article:
De facto apology for, and support for, murderers and their actions. In the wake of the murder of 12 people this is the best you can do?
Papers which refused to show the art of artists just barely murdered for their art need to find useful apologists for their despicable and cowardly actions. USA Today has such a man on staff apparently.
Want to know about Islam? Ask an ex-Muslim. You'll get more honest answers about the totality of the situation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, and so on. Also you'll get more honest answers from people who left other cults such as Mormonism. Ex-Mormons usually more easily sympathize & empathize with the plight of people in other cults. The two main differences between Islam & Mormonism are time-since-founding and that the core edicts of Islam are more dangerous & destructive & abusive than Mormonism.
Apology for murder. Apology for censorship. Apology for having a new de facto sharia, a new "Islamic-State-Light" in America and Europe. That's what people like DeWayne Wickham are apparently advocating for.
As for me I'll stand with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and Caroline Fourest.
Here's a related article by Ms. Fourest:
Violence Against Charlie Hebdo: The Globalization of Moral and Intellectual Confusion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-fourest/violence-against-charlie-_b_6509802.html
Cowardly "journalists" who aren't really journalists quickly apologize for murder and their own pusillanimous actions, search, find, and scratch for every possible reason for their cowardly actions. It's lame - but you're part of the "old media." Old-media is who's doing the censoring of art artists were just barely murdered for. Thank goodness for the Internet, where we need not ask amoral cowards to be our filters.
The "left" really does *nothing* to help Muslims leave the abusive cult they're in. So-called "journalists" stand by and watch murder happen, and then quickly go on and apologize for (and de facto support) the actions of the murderers. It's your job to report on the facts - that's it - not to be cowardly rear-end-covering filters in the wake or terrible murder and murder-enabled artistic censorship.
Additional related articles:
We Are Charlie: Free Speech v. Self-Censorship
by Douglas Murray
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5016/charlie-hebdo-attack
Charlie Hebdo stood alone. What does that say about our ‘free’ press?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-stood-alone-what-does-that-say-about-our-free-press/
Salman Rushdie on Charlie Hebdo: freedom of speech can only be absolute
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/15/salman-rushdie-on-charlie-hebdo-freedom-of-speech-can-only-be-absolute
Charlie Hebdo Editor To Chuck Todd: When You Blur Our Cover, 'You Blur Out Democracy' - Hebdo Editor Scolds Outlets For Not Showing Cover: ‘You Blur Out Democracy’ With Censorship
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/18/hebdo-editor-scolds-outlets-for-not-showing-cover-you-blur-out-democracy-with-censorship-video/
Men Without Chests: How C.S. Lewis Predicted Charlie Hebdo Censorship
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/08/men-without-chests-how-c-s-lewis-predicted-charlie-hebdo-censorship/
Sam Harris' new entry on the murder of Hebdo artists, and the subsequent censorship.
After Charlie Hebdo and Other Thoughts
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/after-charlie-hebdo-and-other-thoughts
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Friday, March 8, 2013
Margaret Sanger - as amoral as Peter Singer sadly
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist & I agree. Maybe everyone is a little bit of a eugenicist also. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, apparently wrote a rather distasteful article on the issue. Check out page 107 of the following document:
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/1932-04%20April-PLAN%20FOR%20PEACE.pdf
And a more readable version:
http://hawaii.edu/religion/courses/sanger.htm
"The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.
c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives..."
---end of quote
Well, isn't that nice. All the good old fashioned family values we've come to expect from rather famous eugenicists. I guess what pops into the brain of one totalitarian zealot who had only one testicle can easily somehow pop into the pretty brain & eyes of another - the second person having no testicles at all. What's up with that? Was advocacy for eugenics just a 1932 "thing," or was this all just a coincidence?
Further thoughts:
Hitchens on abortion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8HhTKzmvas
I am reminded of the crazed hysteria on the left revolving around overpopulation, a hysteria which has caused some people, sadly, to not have children of their own. "Those people in the third world have a lot of babies & so therefore I should have none." Crazy & stupid in my view.
More smart people and more atheists should have children. Yes, Planned Parenthood may do some good. But, Margaret Sanger was a eugenic authoritarian nutbag also - no better than parents who consider after-birth abortion today. Oh, who else thinks such a thing is ok? Peter Singer:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singer-is-amoral-fuck-speaking-as.html
In looking at source documents by Margaret Sanger, it appears that she was an amoral fuck also.
Women raped, and all women up until the baby is viable, should be able to get abortions if they want them. But I also agree that the procedure should, in general, be highly discouraged.
Not everything is equal. Sanger & Singer are in rather the same boat - a boat I prefer not to be in.
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/1932-04%20April-PLAN%20FOR%20PEACE.pdf
And a more readable version:
http://hawaii.edu/religion/courses/sanger.htm
"The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.
c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives..."
---end of quote
Well, isn't that nice. All the good old fashioned family values we've come to expect from rather famous eugenicists. I guess what pops into the brain of one totalitarian zealot who had only one testicle can easily somehow pop into the pretty brain & eyes of another - the second person having no testicles at all. What's up with that? Was advocacy for eugenics just a 1932 "thing," or was this all just a coincidence?
Further thoughts:
Hitchens on abortion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8HhTKzmvas
I am reminded of the crazed hysteria on the left revolving around overpopulation, a hysteria which has caused some people, sadly, to not have children of their own. "Those people in the third world have a lot of babies & so therefore I should have none." Crazy & stupid in my view.
More smart people and more atheists should have children. Yes, Planned Parenthood may do some good. But, Margaret Sanger was a eugenic authoritarian nutbag also - no better than parents who consider after-birth abortion today. Oh, who else thinks such a thing is ok? Peter Singer:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singer-is-amoral-fuck-speaking-as.html
In looking at source documents by Margaret Sanger, it appears that she was an amoral fuck also.
Women raped, and all women up until the baby is viable, should be able to get abortions if they want them. But I also agree that the procedure should, in general, be highly discouraged.
Not everything is equal. Sanger & Singer are in rather the same boat - a boat I prefer not to be in.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights
As an atheist I whole heatedly disagree with Peter Singer’s positions on abortion, infanticide, and human rights.
Notes from video commentary, with additional thoughts:
Religion is a natural phenomenon. So the good that comes from religion is natural. There are atheists who are concerned about abortion, and who absolutely do not agree with Singer.
Without god everything is permitted? No. There is no god, and not everything is permitted. So the answer is no to that proposition.
In Averick's article on Singer he doesn't need to paint all atheists as immoral. We aren’t - we’re human just like him, and humans have human morals.
And as for Singer, I recommend you read this post and an earlier post, which includes notes on Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens, on the problems with moral & cultural relativism, and an advocacy for discouraging abortion.
Can a middle road be taken on abortion? How about: First & second trimester: legal but highly discouraged. Third trimester: illegal. After birth abortion: equivalent to murder. How's that?
Morality comes from a combination of socialization and genetics. Check out Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, & Daniel Dennet on the subject of morality, religion, and the thankfully evolving & improving moral zeitgeist.
I admit that I have built in morals, as do most people except for sociopaths, and except (in part) for people currently tied down by meme sets that are infecting their brains & making them less moral than they would otherwise be.
Religion can make people less moral than they would otherwise be (eg: suicide bombers as one example). The ivory tower of academics can do the same, for example where students learn the "value" of moral & cultural relativism, and the lie of the blank slate.
Did your god have sex with Mary the mother of Jesus? Does your god live on Kolob? Is Mohamed god's messenger? If you don't believe any one, two, or three of these three points, then maybe it's not illusory to be a so-called atheist.
Stop mutilating the genitals of kids. There's plenty of people who're atheist with regard to many gods including yours, and yet they have just as much "family values" as you have.
Nihilism is not an appropriate response, not from atheists or theists or anyone.
A set of memes can put you off the rails of natural built in morality. So watch out & don't be sucked in by anyone.
Additional blog post on these issues:
Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singer-is-amoral-fuck-speaking-as.html
My additional writings:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
http://corvus.freeshell.org
And from people I generally admire:
http://www.samharris.org/media/video
Hitchens:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hitchens&oq=hitchens&gs_l=youtube
Pinker:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steven+pinker&oq=steven+pinker&gs_l=youtube
Dennett:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=daniel+dennett&oq=daniel+dennett&gs_l=youtube
We aren't required to choose between the ass hole tea baggers of Fox News & the current Republican Party, and the similarly anally retentive feminazi zero population growth ultra lefties who love PETA and similar groups, and who believe that women who're homemakers are selling themselves short. A pox on both of their houses. We're moving forward, as natural humans who're interested in truth and what science reveals about everything. And when your preconceived or inculcated notions are debunked, then drop them. I'll try to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)