"I am an Islamophillic leftie and you cannot change my mind. You can show how the Quran and Mohamed are reprehensible and evil, you won't change my moral and cultural relativist mind. You can advocate that we really stand up for the value of comedy, satire, and art which help free people from mental and physical slavery, and you still won't change my Islamophillic tendencies. I love Islam and hate Ametica, the West, and the Enlightenment, and I'm a traitor to all three. Mohamed was an advocate for social justice and women's rights. And all things are relative. Plus I belong to a de facto death cult that advocates for very low rates of reproduction, so in the end the brain washed people will of course win!"
...says your average watcher of Democracy Now(?), and appreciators of Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, and Reza Aslan. Also your average BBC, New York Times, MSNBC, CNC, Sky News, Toronto Star, CBC, and PBS Newshour editor. And your average UU member or leader.
So the left has their denialist de facto religion with dogma, heresy trials, and excommunication also.
The above referenced complaint also relates directly to the PBS Newshour.
"Old media," such as the Newshour can go the way of the Dodo (no offense to Dodos). Your main audience appears to be Luddites with no access to the Internet.
Paris attack: Taslima Nasreen says freedom of expression is absolute
Speaking on the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists, Bangladeshi author said that the freedom of expression is absolute and that the state failed to act against radicals.
According to Mr. Murray behind closed doors European leaders know the truth. But they dare not speak it in public.
We don't need you to censor truth and facts on our behalf. We don't need you to be our filters of reality, and to hide us from the truth 12 people just died for.
I am writing to make a complaint regarding the BBC News division, and the matter of your choosing to now show copies of Charlie Hebdo.
It's almost as if you view these papers as a type of pornography. You also don't show graphic images of sexual activity. And also you refuse to show caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohamed, even after several deaths of associated publishers & so on.
This is outrageous and highly immoral, these actions of yours.
You're not reporting the news. Your censoring it. Managing it.
You're acting in this matter very much like "old media." New media remains relevant because it's uncensored and often unfiltered.
We don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from sexuality. And we don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from caricatures of Mohamed.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion. I am an ex-Mormon and so I know what it's like to believe in a charismatic charlatan prophet. Joseph Smith had a 14 year old wife & he was married to women who were still legally married to other men. Mohamed had a 6 year old wife, and he was a warmonger & murderer.
So the bottom line is that you're not reporting the news accurately. Instead you're acting as a lame old-media-style filter. And you're acting as an enabler for murder.
Your actions in this matter essentially are complicit with, and an act of apologetics for, murders. And for what? For lampooning the prophet of a religion. An abusive religion. A religion which never had a Reformation, or maybe it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one effectively if we are willing to be honest, and to treat Islam with the same level of criticism we use for other religions.
We don't need your help to keep us from cartoons, especially when the cartoonists involved were murdered for what they drew.
Publish images of the latest issue of Hebdo.
p.s. Hebdo applied a near equal level of scrutiny toward all religions. That's the way it should be. Why should everyone be required to treat Islam with kid gloves? Because it's people are supposedly oppressed, or because it's a "race," or because angry Muslims will try & kill us for being critical of Islam? Which is it?
Muslims are oppressed by their own religion, and by the fact that Islam *never* had a proper Reformation like Christianity did. Maybe Islam is having it's Reformation now (where afterword it can have it's big boy pants on and be able to deal with cartoons like adults instead of like spoiled little brat kids) - but it will only have an effective reformation if we're willing to be honest about Islam.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion.
Everyone should be perfectly willing to be critical if all other religions.
Leftists often don't know what it's like to live in real religions, such as Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, the Jim Jones or David Koresh cults, and so on. All they know is about the light & fluffy stuff they hear in Anglican or Unitarian Universalist meetings. But those are no longer *real* religions, where people really *are* brain washed.
What's one key sign of a cult? When children view the cult leaders as being more important than their families. In Islam children are taught to value Mohamed more than their parents.
That's abusive, and a key sign of a cult.
Can we handle honesty? Apparently some of us cannot. But news orgs should not keep of from cartoons of all things! Especially when the associated artists were murdered for their work.
A quote from Faisal Saeed Al Mutar (December 18, 2014):
I am going to confess about something that has been bugging me for
the past 6 months that I want to get out of my chest and I know that
some people will disagree me about it.
Since June this year, I
have "partly" quit the Atheist community in America and put full focus
on human rights in dictatorships which has always been my interest since
I read Christopher Hitchens's first book, when I went to the first
Atheist conference last year in Austin, I was filled with excitement and joy, after finishing my last conference for this year in North Carolina, I was filled with fear.
This fear comes from an Iraqi who lived a civil war, there is so much
inner fighting that happens in the Atheist movement that put me so many
times in between choosing between two people that I both consider
friends.
It's like being the child of a divorced parents who hate each other.
I am a foreigner to this country and I noticed this behavior to be extremely weird and destructive.
It's always to good to disagree and have a civil discussion about it
but the movement doesn't seem to fulfill what it claims to aspire to.
I have formed a wonderful family in that movement and I am very happy about it.
I sincerely hope that things will be alright whether I will be dead or alive in future to witness it.
Best Regards
Faisal Saeed Al Mutar.
A freaking refugee from a war torn country. www.faisalalmutar.com
---quote ends
My response:
One
could well ask what type of movement the atheist movement is. Clearly
one which requires a lot more laxative, to clear out those who very much
prefer to have atheist groups be de facto religions.
I
agree that examining the life work of people like Christopher Hitchens,
and frankly the life work of the Monty Python group (seriously!) is
key. Also make note of Steven Pinker, Dennett, Harris, and others who've
chosen to push against both sides of the political & social
spectrum - to push against dogmas which simply do not accurately
describe human nature or facts on the ground about many matters.
Atheism Plus? Pour in the Ex-Lax.
Unitarian
Universalism's fawning appreciation of Islam & Mohamed, with the
help of religious curricula drafted directly from Reza Aslan works? Pour
in the Metamucil.
A
rejection 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection, basic
good family values, basic biology, and evolutionary history - from the
left? Add the Miralax. The left can deny human nature too (ref. Pinker
as a start).
It's
hard to have atheist groups which aren't echo chambers, and little
petty cliquish mirrors of the pompous frantic idiocy of
know-it-all-but-know-nothing college students.
Dennett's
dangerous idea is that religion is a natural phenomenon. It's so damn
natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of a social or
political ideology cannot help but form a de facto one, with heresy
trials & excommunication all waiting in the wings as ready tools of
belief maintenance and thought control.
There
is a sickness present in American universities. The sickness of
dogmatic political correctness. Dogma does not help humanity move
forward toward the truth. What you're seeing in atheist groups is a
symptom of this sickness. A crucible of ideas cannot work in an atmosphere of stifling thought control.
A piss poor vehicle for the black community, and media whores like Al Sharpton, to glom onto.
Think about your average bully. Huge bully. Pushing people around. He even thinks he can push cops around, apparently.
Steals a $48 box of cigars, using his huge mass. Then interacts with Mr. Wilson the way he does. Ok, he didn't deserve to die, yes that's true, but he sure a F acted damn stupid!
Do massive bullies who fight with cops, punch them, and grab for their guns "deserve" to be shot? No. But they may well be anyway.
Very poor vehicle for "change." Change in the opposite direction...
Thugs
across America (to the tune of Hands Across America). Thugs across this
land I love. Thugs everywhere, especially in and near Ferguson, Thugs
across America...
Commentary on recent events:
Don't dress like a gansta and get all in the face of the self appointed Latino private community security.
Don't remove the orange end from a fake gun and then wave the now even more real looking fake gun around in a park.
My
view: I agree with Bill Maher that Mr. Brown Jr. was a thug. A
strong-arm robber (as per convenience store video) who was well on his
way to trouble with the police. The officer involved probably reasonably
felt threatened, after tussling with Mr. Brown Jr. in his car.
The
incident with Mr. Brown Jr. is a piss poor vehicle for the black
community to latch onto for "justice" or much of anything else.
The
strong arm robbery (meaning a robbery done using just mass &
strength, being a HUGE guy who pushes people around such as the store
clerk shown in the video) that happened just before Mr. Brown's
interaction with the officer involved:
A
piss poor vehicle for justice or anything. Yes it was sad that the huge
thieving bully thug involved got killed, but he was a huge thieving
bully thug who struggled with a police officer & so on.
I agree that Harris's general views on the brain, free will, and the self may well all be warped by and clouded by his exposure to Buddhism.
Listen to the *whole tone* of Harris's work on free self, consciousness, and the self, and one general path emerges: toward Buddhism masturbatory obsession with getting *all things* out of your head, to find some sort of "peace."
But Harris's views on free will & the self are in my view myopic & simplistic.
When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.
"...Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate..."
"...Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures..."
Ha ha!!! So this is Harris's problem! Even someone like Harris can have his views warped by a religion - one he likes very much, apparently.
I like a lot of what Harris has done in debates, but talk of free will & the self being illusions, well, smells a bit too much of Buddhism, AKA a religion.
Two admins on the group, one named Mark Wittgruber (the apparent group founder), and a Sean Michael Carter took particular special exception to my presence on the group, when I had the audacity to do the following:
As an atheist, challenge the general leftist stance of atheists.
The two men were essentially a tag team engaging in an admin enabled pile on.
Threatening to kick if one refuses to kow tow to the cherished views of the leaders.
Not really engaging in a debate or discussion.
Instead engaging in abusive attacks - when they find your views particularly inconvenient.
Hey, when admins do it, it's ok right?
Not really an atmosphere for an honest & open discussion, to say the least!
This is not new.
Actually this type of activity by admins on facebook is very common.
But it's also a sad commentary on human nature.
Religion is so damn natural (ref Daniel Dennett) that even atheists cannot help (!) but form one when they gather together in groups. Very hard for them to avoid!
The apparent founder of the group appears to be an atheist. But he has no problem with engaging in personal attacks when it suits his apparent needs to have a playground centered around HIS questions, and HIS thoughts, ensuring that HIS beliefs are not questioned or challenged, and that's it.
Here's some of the supposed rules of the group in question:
1. No preaching. 2. No personal attacks. 3. No politics. 4. Do not ban the admins 5. Enjoy the discussion!
The admins of the group are free to break rules two and five.
And so, onward.
Atheists in general don't value free speech any more than anyone else.
And in fact, if they're on the cultural left they usually value it LESS than the cultural right does. A lot less.
Liberals often cannot wrap their heads around problems with their own culture.
I'm generally speaking an economic liberal and a social moderate. A 9/11 liberal. A Christopher Hitchens liberal.
But I have no use for fools, even liberal ones, who can't handle deeper discussions about ALL issues, without restriction (other than, perhaps, a banning of commercialized spam).
Things are related. There's synergies between views. Not everything is one way or the other. Politics and religion are joined, even for the liberal.
When the Unitarian Universalist uses his religion to back his actions, he doesn't see a problem with that. But he gets very upset with a right wing person refers to his religion as something of value.
Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic - not a debate group nor a regular discussion group. A group where the admins have no concept of what the word "debate" actually means. Actively telling participants what they are allowed to say in their replies. Using threats against those who refuse to comply (threats to ban & kick). Using petty expletives to refer to posts they don't agree with. And so on.
It's par for the course, a course I've seen several times on Facebook.
Atheists don't like their beliefs challenged, by fellow atheists. They get just as upset as any right wing religious person - and they will happily engage in heresy trials & excommunication against those who challenge their beliefs in any meaningful way.
Should an 11 year old American Indian with leukemia be condemned to death, because of the new age raw food eating modern medical science denying "aboriginal" beliefs of her parents? When self hating leftist hipsters in Florida and Canada do it it's not child abuse, right?
Is this a triumph for "native" "aboriginal" rights?
In my view Canada has become oh so very politically correct, and enmeshed in liberal self hate, that they cannot help but let this 11 year old "noble savage" die of leukemia.
Leaders in the Amerindian community are furthering past abuse by whitey by such actions. Taking the sword from the whites of the past, holding it in their own hands, and using it themselves on their own children.
I'm a fan of Harris, but I rather think that the sense of self is no more of an illusion than color is an illusion.
Do colors exist? Yes. It's true that our range of detection depends fully on our evolutionary history. But we do detect them accurately, within the scope of our built in detection equipment.
So to say that free will & "the self" are illusions is not really accurate. It's deceptive
When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.
"...A more direct test of the relationship between the readiness potential and the "awareness of the intention to move" was conducted by Banks and Isham (2009). In their study, participants performed a variant of the Libet's paradigm in which a delayed tone followed the button press. Subsequently, research participants reported the time of their intention to act (e.g., Libet's "W"). If W were time-locked to the readiness potential, W would remain uninfluenced by any post-action information. However, findings from this study show that W in fact shifts systematically with the time of the tone presentation, implicating that W is, at least in part, retrospectively reconstructed rather than pre-determined by the readiness potential..."
Sam Harris has apparently been *completely* persuaded by the Libet experiment.
From Dennett:
"...Here, then, are my conclusions: determinism is a red herring, neuroscience has ominous implications only for closet Cartesians, Mr. Puppet is a defective intuition pump, and there is a consequentialist, compatibilist justification of the just deserts clause. Thank you for your attention..."
But one can reasonably criticize Dennett's view of theaters as well:
There may not be a Cartesian theater, but that doesn't mean there isn't a theater at all.
When the software is "up," it's running, we're conscious. That's it.
Doesn't mean the "self" is an illusion.
Doesn't mean that free will is an illusion.
Colors are real.
Perceptions are real.
Just because there's interpretation going on doesn't mean that nothing is going on, or that everything is just so spooky that we are just slaves to chance or whatever the hell the root causes are of thoughts.
Sam Harris has sadly been derailed by a faulty interpretation of Libet's work.
What do I think is the REAL problem with all this?
Buddhism. Harris's exposure to Buddhism has in my view slanted his. Another religion screwing up people's views.
"Meditate until you feel the center dropping away."
...my interpretation of what Harris is advocating for.
Oooh! Spooky! A ham fisted poorly designed poorly interpreted experiment by Libet is glommed onto by Harris & others.
Sad. So sad. Inappropriately applied reductionism and dogmatically restrictive eliminativism.
A new "god of the gaps," where god = "the illusion of free will and of 'the self'."
Still religion and denialism, just under a new name.
We don't deny there's software or wetware in operation. The fact that timing exists doesn't in any way whatsoever mean that the software doesn't exist in the first place, or that it's not running in the first place.
We have more free will than a carrot, or in other words more ability to choose & decide & calculate.
When a highly complex robot says that he or she has a sense of "self," why not take them at their word? That "self" may be the fact that their software or wetware is "up" - and that's fine. It may not mean they have a soul in the traditional sense. But so what! The "self" is an expression of a currently-operational highly complex self-aware biological system. And secular apology for spooky Buddhism doesn't detract from that fact.
Little robots can derail the thinking of intelligent robots.
I am a robot.
We are the robots.
...therefore "we're an illusion?" "Free will is an illusion?" Our "sense of self" is an illusion?
I don't think so. We're alive, or we're not. The software or wetware is up, or it's not. The loop is running, or it's not.
Harris's view seems to de facto advocate for throwing up our hands and giving up. "Thoughts just arise," as he might say. Spooky. Ok, let's throw up our hands and say our new god of the gaps did it. Timing exists in thought processes, as Libet may have found. Oooh. Spooky. Therefore we don't have free will.
Sorry. Lame conclusions.
We are just beginning to learn. But these people who quickly jump to these conclusions about free will (Harris) or even a sense of self (Dennett), are in my view jumping too quickly to their conclusions, or are being too simplistic with them.
Doesn't mean the universe is spooky like Deepak Chopra advocates for with his woo. Doesn't mean there's a god. Doesn't mean that consciousness is "beyond" the realm of understanding.
But the robotic roots of biology have unfortunately derailed some otherwise pretty smart thinkers (Harris, Dennett, and others).
We have more free will than a carrot.
We have more sense of self than a carrot.
Harris should make note of the first fact.
Dennett should make note of the second.
Both free will and the sense of self come as a direct result of evolution by natural selection. The ability to choose (to varying degrees), and the perception that we have a sense of self, all come from evolution and the fact that we've evolved to become more complex biological creatures. Creatures made of tiny robots. But the fact that these two things are processes at all (eg: software or wetware "running") seems to trip up both Harris & Dennett, depending on what you are asking them about (free will, or a sense of self). Dennett seems a bit less susceptible to being tripped up perhaps. But I have the impression that a complete dismissal of the Cartesian theater goes too far.
Maybe the impression of the theater is simply how the wetware works & functions. Does that mean the theater doesn't exist? It exists no less than any other piece of software exists. And even claiming that may be too simplistic.
"...By separating the 'we' who can rebel against our genes and our brain, this avowed materialist becomes a Cartesian dualist in the laudable interest of preserving human agency... I find this abdication unsatisfactory, and instead want to insist that our sense of freedom to act, of possessing agency, emerges inevitably from our biological nature..."
How about instead of Cartesian dualism we have Cartesian singularism - or perhaps the "sense of dualism" is simply how the system works. Doesn't mean it's an "illusion" though!
Terms like "G-spot" & "vaginal orgasm" are apparently misnomers or a identification of what are actually other structures, such as the internal bulbs of the clitoris itself and so on.
My response: Maybe the terms are inaccurate (eg: g-spot vs urethral sponge). And I bet one still can get some additional response from finding what some call the g-spot. Saying "it doesn't exist" is just plain wrong. Maybe the anatomical labeling is incorrect, or the embryological roots have been misidentified - but that doesn't mean the structure doesn't exist.
“ A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. ”
further
“ a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice ”
and
“ In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.
Also:
"Kellogg thought that masturbation was the worst evil one could commit; he often referred to it as 'self-abuse.' He was a leader of the anti-masturbation movement, and promoted extreme measures to prevent masturbation. In addition, Kellogg thought that diet played a huge role in masturbation and that a bland diet would decrease excitability and prevent masturbation. Thus, Kellogg invented Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in 1878. He hoped that feeding children this plain cereal every morning would help to combat the urges of 'self-abuse.'"
After reading his further complaints about Glenn Greenwald and similar leftist a-holes I have the following response:
Truth be told I still have nothing but disdain for the Duck Dynasty hating politically correct ignoramuses who head up Atheists is Utah and related groups. These people will never reach the rural middle and right in America, with their reflexive self righteous petty piling on and pouncing.
As I read what Harris wrote I can see exactly where he's coming from.
Perhaps I'm moderately "ok" with gay marriage now, such as it is. But I think atheism should and must be a big enough tent to allow for all views to be expressed, how ever politically incorrect, of offensive to your average shit for brains ultra-PC liberal - speaking as a general economic liberal myself, but one who's not fucking PC about every little thing.
Quote from interview: "...On April 5, 2014, Rory Patrick announced to his Twitter followers that he was going to stop masturbating for 100 days. Soon, a hashtag was started: #Rory100. Friends and supporters cheered him on, sent him messages of encouragement..."
Respondents from his supporters as found at #Rory100: "...solidarity. we love you..." "...I believe..."...in my heart I believe in u & ur miracles..."
My response to all:
Oh the pain & sorrow, of having genitals. The great solidarity raised by three fingers, of others, offering great & wonderful support to the protagonist.
As I viewed the people's responses at #Rory100 I felt amazed, annoyed, and sick. My fuck what did the guy do? Abstain from touching his penis for 100 days? That warrants tearful wondrous support for the guy? WTF?
In any case:
The left bemoans the fact that we have genitals at all, nearly as much as the right does.
The left is unhappy that genitals can be used to make babies.
The right is unhappy that genitals can be used for things other than making babies.
And both seem to get pretty upset when your average sexual urge interferes with your ability to do other activities.
Oh, if there were just a way to separate out this part of our brain, right?
These religious prophets, leaders, and scholars hear you Mr. Patrick. They've got their three fingers up in solidarity with you. So do the Victorians and Puritans.
100 days without masturbating? Who gives a flip (rephrase in the common Internet colloquialism as you please).
I fully agree there can be some value in abstaining say for a few days, or maybe for up to two weeks. So that you can, for example, focus on finding a real in the flesh date or mate. But concepts like Karezza are in my view dangerous and abusive.
Yes perhaps our moods would be more even if we didn't have genitals. But if we didn't have them we wouldn't be here. So don't look too closely at the mouth of this wonderful gift horse (if that's a good analogy - whatever).
Yes it's good that sex results in kids, and it should. The childfree life has a higher probability of being an empty one.
But it's also mostly ok that outliers like gays can have sex. They can contribute to society, and sex can help their lives be more happy. That's fine too. So both sides are wrong, and right, on these issues.
Yes, the full version of Destricted, including the Balkan short film, did show at the humble Broadway theater (Salt Lake Film Society) during Sundance in 2006. How does Robert Redford stand living in Utah County? Sooo icky poo. The brain washed bubble. But, I guess even the mobots down there can't stop some artists from L.A. doing their thing high in the mountains.
Maybe some found Destricted dull. It wasn't dull for me in 2006. I had to pinch myself: Am I still in Utah? OMG, this film is actually playing here in a real theater? Yes it was. Revolutionary for a Mormon boy to see that Salt Lake could finally host such a thing.
The perversions of Brigham Young & Joseph Smith, with 14 & 15 year old wives & the wives of other men, and the perversions of Spencer Kimball, with his Miracle of Forgiveness house of horrors evil book - finally receive a small humble & healthy response with a film like this showing during Sundance. Maybe in London they're already well past worry about Victorian style intrusions into the private lives of their citizenry. But things like this still happen in Mormon bishop's offices here. So, yes, this is one reason why having a film like this show in Salt Lake was important - to counter the hypocrisy, lies, and abuse present here w/in Mormon churches.
For all I know all of the shorts have made it onto youtube & other forums. You can check yourself. But I'm glad to see that one of the shorts I found to be of interest, and which was omitted from the 2010 US version, did make it onto youtube & other sites.
"Atheism is a religion" I see that is the new thing going around. This is simply NOT true!!
My response:
Using all caps does not increase the validity of an argument.
If political ideology & goals have been brought into one or more atheist groups you belong to, which I'm sure they HAVE, then yes you have a de facto religion.
Are the wages of sin, death (in other words, are there very good fully natural evolutionary reasons religions came up with prohibitions regarding destructive behaviors)? http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29442642
The more popular groups, such as CFI, American Atheists, and national humanist groups do very much have political goals & ideologies engrained in their core group "missions." And so, rather like the creationists do with Darwinian evolution & the god concept, they put the cart before the horse.
Humans are not born blank slates, and leftists work to deny human nature in huge ways. Righties deny human nature in other ways (& truth & facts). But it's sad to see that both sides are in denial.
Anyway I agree that NFL jocks who hit their girlfriends & wives should be ejected. I agree that abusers who break the law should be locked up.
There *may* be "rape culture" in some hiphop music. But it's way too non-PC to be honest about that...
Also rape is about sex, not just about control. I have no idea why people say it's not about sex. How do they know? And what happens during rape anyway?
"...Evolutionary psychologists have been at pains to show that rape is
actually a sexual crime through which men seek sexual gratification from
women who would otherwise refuse them..."
"...Which leads in to the reason why we keep hearing that rape is not about
sex. It is philosophically untenable to keep pushing the boundaries of
the sexual revolution without making rape seem less and less violative
by comparison, as the act which is coerced in rape becomes less and less
private, personal, and valued in society. So the only way to retain
the sense of horror at rape is to alter the rationale for rape being
bad; that the goal is total violation, so that the violence
becomes the issue; rather than the horror coming from the intimacy of
the act which was forced upon the victim, which is the old rationale..."
---
A tough topic but it's important to be honest. There's fear mongering & inappropriate shaming on the left that needs to be debunked, called out, and resisted.
Forcibly imposed upon self, and all people, undue flagellation & shame, because yes some humans are criminals or abusers. But not everyone is and we all shouldn't be treated like we are.
Anger and hatred at being human, at all humans, because a few humans do bad things. Now that is a type of "rape culture," rape of a different kind.
Both the right AND the left seek to use & abuse students in colleges & universities for their own ends. Both sides tell them lies, about human nature, and the truth.
A portion of the "sexual revolution" has, can, and does destroy families (ie: advocacy for non-monogamy, for the "childfree" life, for disposable marriages, and for seeking to have a general disconnect between sexuality & reproduction - all incredibly abusive tenants of the revolution).
The parts of the revolution that advocate for honesty, education, having more fun with our partners, being less inhibited with our partners, and not shaming for adults viewing other adults sexual activities (eg: sexuality expressed in art & film) - yes those are some generally good parts. But seeking to outright deny human nature, and decouple sex from having babies is evil & abusive.
Both sides have an agenda: to hide the truth in their own ways.
Yes evolution by natural selection did happen. No there is no god. But, on the other hand you can really fuck up your life if you "choose" to live a wastrel childfree life when you could have, and should have, had some kids. You can fuck up your children via adultery and believing you can easily bail on your husband or wife.
Separating yourself too far from the tree of life, and from basic human nature, can screw up your life & the lives of others.
Oh, and a certain percentage of humans will be naturally born criminals (sociopaths & worse). Lock them up, I very much agree...
