A short version of what happened: a 16-year-old girl, Crystal, posts a video on YouTube. She calls out for help to get her alleged rapist charged with the crime. Later, the case is dropped. According to police documents (look at Smokinggun.com), she had said to police that the sex was consensual, legally speaking. I wasn't there for that. I don't know, so there won't be too much comments on that here, though I will disagree with the FL prosecutor who walked away from the case because the accuser was "a mere 1 month from her 16th birthday." I may be too hard on the prosecutor, since she may have thought that the case was very difficult to push on a jury. In any case, let's look at the ideal here: If the law says statuatory rape occurs with children age 15 and younger, then we must prosecute people who have knowingly had sex with such children.
And beyond this, I have little to spit about the case itself. That's on the sidelines of this post. What happened, what's in Crystal's head. I wasn't there for that. I am not a cop, or a lawyer, nor the accused, nor the accusor's father.
What I do know are the comments left on the video, such as
- "you little slut. you probably had it coming."
- "You are such a little whore! ew!"
- "Someone take an iron poker and stick it in her pooper..."
Wow. That's amazing. As if she had shat on their doorsteps.
If you can give me evidence that proves she burned their houses down, then I can understand why they'd use so many insults.
- "I'd rape her"
- "come to london so i can knock you out and end you misery you silly bitch"
- "Well guys the thing is, there is no "what if it's real...And if you ever make any videos as stupid as this ever again. I'm going to come rape you myself. FOR REAL. DID YOU HEAR WHAT I SAID...FOR REAL"
Wow. Now, people step on logic. Obviously. How do people justify threatening another human being like this, for these reasons. Imagine if someone stepped on your foot by accident.Would you most likely to
A) Walk away?
or
B) Punch them?
I shouldn't have to give you the answer. Really. So logic doesn't explain why they wrote what they wrote. How can we explain their ill logic?
Because people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I'll tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts.
They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts. If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes.
Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
This, I believe, is because of our reaction to seeing how other people act. You see how other people seem to think, and then your thinking changes for a variety of reasons.
Now. Upon seeing the comments toward the YouTube clip, you get a little glimpse into the posters' universes. Only a little glimpse. Even if you knew this person for years, and ate dinner with them on a daily basis, you'd have to work hard to understand the world exactly how they view it. We don't know what these people were thinking when they type; we are ignorant of their earlier memories, what fills them, etc, etc.
What we know, what we sure as hell know: how their action affects us. Or, at least, can affect us. Upon seeing their comments, I am inclined to feel like maybe people are generally bad. That, even if people act civil in public, their private universes fume with venom. And when I think of this, take it to heart, my private little universe get tainted with a little more venom. Their venom encourages the growth of my venom.
Let's repeat: people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I can tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts. They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts.
If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes. Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
So, angry universes can lead into angry universes, which can lead into angry universes, which can in turn lead into other angry universes, and so forth. Angry universes lead into angry actions. Sad to sad, happy to happy, goofy to goofy, etc. And I know that I sometimes lean toward distrusting people, even when they smile to my face. Especially when they smile to my face. That seems like a signal that that person is planning something.
And I remember reading this book called "I Never Called It Rape" by Robin Warshaw. The report that acts as the foundation for the book says that about 25% have been raped, mostly by people they knew: boyfriends, and friends. RAINN--the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network--says that 1 out of 6 American women will be sexually assaulted (acts including rape and acts that fall short of rape), most of them were assaulted by people they know. The most restrained estimate belongs to the US Bureau of Justice that says less than one rape victim exists for every 1000 people over age 11. The reason for the discrepancy, apparently, is that rapes are underreported.
So, let's assume that the 1 in 6 stat is the truth. I want you to go to a public space, and count each woman you pass, starting at one, going to six, then start over back to one, go to 6, then again, making note each time you get to 6. So, that sixth woman, chances are, has been sexually assaulted. Look at all that venom getting built up. Look at all those universes getting a little moldly, a little bit more messed up. Those universes in turn influence other universes to get gunked up.
So it goes. Etc, etc, forever and forever. If we lament about the world fall apart, we make a mistake. The truth is that we only realize that the world can suck. Nothing is new except that realization. Nothing is new except our universe getting altered by the universes of others.
And the shape of the change is a choice. We choose how we change, and a lot of times it takes effort to mold ourselves if the environment fights against our actions. Yet that's possible. Every act, every piece of writing, every single thing we do is an expression of our control over our universe. Though the nature of that control remains vague and strangled, it exists.
Books, Systems of Government, Architecture, Transporation, and even YouTube. Leaving our footprints on the Earth.
If I believe in the human race, it is a forced belief. A choice, rather than a conviction--because without the belief, decay sets in. And mold sets in, and shivels the peach, and shrinks it into a hard little ball. And the nectarines grey, and the roaches take over the kitchen, and here, here, the devil reigns, where people are only meat. So, yes, yes, I believe in our Better Angels.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Turning the Other Cheek
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
This is why I fall short of calling myself a Christian. That’s a hard rule to follow. ‘Do not resist an evil person.’ That means, should a person attack you, you should be meek. You should take harm rather than give back harm. This results in another bruised cheek. This results in criminals walking the streets, this results in your family getting hurt.
I think this is the make it or break it rule. The dividing line between the ideal Christianity and Christianity in practice. Quite a few people accept the text so far as following the text will help sustain them in the present, physical life. Some will justify their violence using the New Testament.
That’s how Christian people call for assassination or war. Because they are unable to follow the rule, and sometimes justify breaking it as going for the public good. That’s like Michael Corleone going to church. So to me, when a Christian shows or feels ill will toward another, that is about the most serious sign that that Christian lacks an adequate faith.
I know, because when I learned, some time ago, that ill will was the definitive sign of a lack of faith. I find believing in God difficult. If I believed in God, using the heart, I would mind my ill will. Instead, bitterness carried itself to the point that I lost the affection of quite a few acquaintances. I learned that death, loneliness and pain are only feared in the absence of faith. Without faith, family members cry at funerals. Etc.
Yet what Christianity seems to be about the aspiration toward holiness. It accepts sinners. It takes it for granted that practitioners have sinned. Jesus died for sinner. Sin is the major, even definitive, point of the religion. It serves as the foil of how people should act. It serves to show that life should be lived in the service, for the sake, to the goodwill of others so that they can have Heaven on Earth.
I aspire to become a Christian. I aspire to purge my heart of evil. To become a selfless person, or close enough. I am definitely at the stage where when I see that Christianity is used as a justification of ill will, I get pretty pissed.
Imagine a guy with a club shouting: “God loves you, faggot,” and bashing another man in the skull.
It’s something beautiful warped inside out.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
This is why I fall short of calling myself a Christian. That’s a hard rule to follow. ‘Do not resist an evil person.’ That means, should a person attack you, you should be meek. You should take harm rather than give back harm. This results in another bruised cheek. This results in criminals walking the streets, this results in your family getting hurt.
I think this is the make it or break it rule. The dividing line between the ideal Christianity and Christianity in practice. Quite a few people accept the text so far as following the text will help sustain them in the present, physical life. Some will justify their violence using the New Testament.
That’s how Christian people call for assassination or war. Because they are unable to follow the rule, and sometimes justify breaking it as going for the public good. That’s like Michael Corleone going to church. So to me, when a Christian shows or feels ill will toward another, that is about the most serious sign that that Christian lacks an adequate faith.
I know, because when I learned, some time ago, that ill will was the definitive sign of a lack of faith. I find believing in God difficult. If I believed in God, using the heart, I would mind my ill will. Instead, bitterness carried itself to the point that I lost the affection of quite a few acquaintances. I learned that death, loneliness and pain are only feared in the absence of faith. Without faith, family members cry at funerals. Etc.
Yet what Christianity seems to be about the aspiration toward holiness. It accepts sinners. It takes it for granted that practitioners have sinned. Jesus died for sinner. Sin is the major, even definitive, point of the religion. It serves as the foil of how people should act. It serves to show that life should be lived in the service, for the sake, to the goodwill of others so that they can have Heaven on Earth.
I aspire to become a Christian. I aspire to purge my heart of evil. To become a selfless person, or close enough. I am definitely at the stage where when I see that Christianity is used as a justification of ill will, I get pretty pissed.
Imagine a guy with a club shouting: “God loves you, faggot,” and bashing another man in the skull.
It’s something beautiful warped inside out.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Vengeance (1st draft)
I have yet to meet God. I am uncertain of a metaphysical engine that fumes with love, and sneers at the slime dripping through the streets. I am uncertain of its form, and more uncertain of its existence. Therefore, this essay--and perhaps all my essays--restricts itself to the form of the universe. The way it seems to me rather than the way it has been told to us.
A completely ninhilistic viewpoint of the world fucks up the need for an essay, since it assumes that nothing matters, inherently speaking. IE. That all meaning stems from the biological, rather than biological steming from the meaning. Maybe that's true, that there is no substantial meaning in the world. People, do, however, react with feeling and constructed meaning. From this, I can only assume that they is a meaning in our heads. Should there be no God, and our lives built upon wholly biological processes, there is nothing to say that there is no meaning in the universe. Only that there is no God, and that what we call the souls rests in our skulls. But this fails logically knock out all ideas of morality. This may mean, however, that meaning varies from person to person, from biology to biology.
The problem of vengeance stems on the idea that those who have been hurt deserve to seek retribution. They should, in a moral sense, hurt those hurt who hurt them. For vengeance to be justified in a utilitarian sense, more good must come from it than harm. It the target of vengeance will likely hurt others again (eg. a serial killer) retribution will be warrented since an act of vengeance will eliminate all possibility of the future atrocity occuring. If the target serves the public good, however, then utilitarianism can mess things up. Should the target be a billionaire philanthropist, sending him to jail for an assault charge may cause more harm than allowing him to remain free, since his money should save hungry children, send people to college, aid the efforts to clean up after an environmental disaster, etc.Let's assume, to complicate things, that people have a difficulty understanding the public good. They have a difficulty separating their needs from the needs of others. In this case, which I believe to be pretty damn pervasive, utilitarianism is only an idea. It's pretty damn hard to stick to. Maybe if the billionaire's assault ended in an black eye, then the victim might be able to forgive and forget. But let's say the assault ended in the victim becoming a quadrepligic. Then the parents of that victim would sure as hell have a difficult time sticking to a utilitarian view of the word. I mean, shit, unless technology fixes things, their kids is going to be physically dependant forever.
FOREVER.
The parents will be inclined to purchase a weapon, repay the quadrepligia, and then some. Even if they decide to not seek vegeance, they will almost certainly have some trouble getting over the situation, if they ever do get over it.
"Vegeance is mine, I will repay" says the LORD, in the most hard-ass declaration of all time. If this is true, then everything is okay. No matter what happens, and who is hurt, GOD will settle the score. He will know what to do with the billionaire.
Let's assume, though, that God doesn't exist. So where are we? Obviously, in pretty fucky situation. And this situation gets evewn more fucky when people's perception of God allows them to take violence into their own hands. Many people of the Abrahamic faiths have been involved in a considerable amount of violence throughout history. I reject the notion, however, that the violence stemmed from the faiths, but from the interpretation of the faith (my interpretation, in all fairness, could be mostly wrong as well). That people have been able to skew the commandments of God to allow mass atrocities is something that says more about Man than about God.The 9-11 attacks are very interesting since they are direct antagonism between two cultures that serve separate religions--Christianity and Islam. My knowledge of the islamic tradition on violence is incomplete, so I'll focus on the Christian interpretation of this event.
America has been considered a Christian nation, in a cultural sense. this is true. Most of our presidents and people have been christian. Some would argue (perhaps incorrectly) that this nation was founded wholly on Christian ideals, and therefore should look at the Christian faith as a moral backbone.
"Turn the other cheek," Jesus says, in the most difficult-to-follow commandment of all time. Submit to others, though they persecute you. Love, though others hate you. For Jesus (I can't remember which gospel at the moment, I think it's in Matthew that he says this) loving our enemies is the most commendable act a person can do. However, some people can define love for friends differently from love for enemies. A mother protecting her son from a burgler, may think, "I love you enough not to wish death upon you," before stabbing the burgler in the eye with a butterknife."
Taking a leap of faith, and allowing God pay vengeance is very difficult to do. For anyone. Only iffier in a situation is someone taking vengeance, and hurting people who may deserve this.
The 9-11 attacks further illustrate this. Perhaps the attackers believed that the people in the planes and buildings deserved death since they were American. Or that God's judgement render the deaths of innocents justified. However, in an atheisitic sense, vengeance only leads to more vengeance. When they attacked the buildings, they gave the US gov't reason and an opportunity to engage in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Deaths caused by US forces would make the friends and relatives of the dead wish for earthly retribution. When the attacked flew those planes into those buildings they began (actually, continued) the chain of violence.
"I'm going to go to Afghanistan to get the bad guys who did this to us," says a volunteer to the US marines in 9-12-01.
"I'm going to make those American pigs pay for this," says a farmer after a missile blows up his house.
And then the violence spills into more violence, and different groups go for what they think they deserve. And the chain goes on and on, with everyone saying in their hearts, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay."
Friday, April 18, 2008
Politicians
I.
Let's assume that humanity is comprised of two elements: the Angelic, and Demonic. Let's define these elements in the most broad, agnostic way possible, ie. with angelic representing 'desirable behavior' and demonic representing 'undesirable behavior'
Positive theories of government inherently assume that anarchy hurts the public good. They assume that the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough to create chaos, unless a benevolent 'Big Brother' exists to sustain order. It assumes that the act of murder must be punished, or other potential murderers will kill without fear of reprisal.It assumes that banks must be regulated, or money will be misused and placed in inappropriate hands in inappropraite amounts.It assumes that the chaotic part of humanity exists as a substantial force to occasionally override the Angelic.
Yet, if the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough as a force, then the government--the 'Big Brother'--cannot be trusted as we would trust as a benevolent, omnipotent God. People make up governments, and therefore pollute that government with their flaws.
II.This all sounds pretty damn obvious. But we like to knock our politicians, or put them on pedestals. No middle ground. No acknowledging that 'They are who we would be in their situation.' The public, generally, paints their politicians as either Angels or Demons. The problem with this stems from the fact that 1) if we consider them angelic, we overlook their flaws. Democracy requires the public to be active in the government. Therefore, if the public official makes a mistake, the public should rectify this mistake. He is not God. He is only a man. And any one of us (of both sexes) are capable of doing his work about just as well. Indeed, if we can choose a good leader, and recognize the leader's good traits, then don't we have the potential to also having those traits?
2) If we paint the official as demonic, then we risk overlooking our own demons. We overlook that possibility that 'They are who we would be.' Again, you may disagree, considering that you are unlike the guy who spends $80,000 on hookers. But what if you were rich? What if you were tempted to do something that could damage your standard of living, your marriage, your life...and you had the chance to get away with it? You could cheat on your spouse, and never get caught. Would you do it? Did you do it? You could steal $1 million from the bank, and pay your way through college. You could cheat on the exam.
Again, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing worse than this is when a little power corrupts absolutely, and in the case of some, this is true.
Opportunity, power. "They are who we would be' Ignorance to this fact, is like a tapeworm. And when we pull that fucker out of our ass, it's gonna hurt.
It's gonna HURT. So, it takes courage to acknowledge and battle our personal flaws. It takes the ability to look at what's happening, and choose righteousness. Rather than allow righteousness to choose us. Because if we wait for a situation to arrive that allows us to display our angelic side, we often fall into a demonic state. The demonic state is more vigorous than the angelic in choosing us.
III.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram tested people's obeidience to authority. Look it up, for your own benefit, but I'll give you a summary. A subject is deceived into thinking he will be the 'teacher' while one of the experimenters pretends to be another subject, a student. The real student, the teacher, is told by the main experimenter to ask the student a number of questions. The teacher is to give the student an electric shock for every wrong answer provided, and each subsequent shock will be more powerful than the last. The student will get questions wrong on purpose. At one point, the student will feign a heart condition, and ask for mercy. (In the classic application of this experiment, the teacher and student are in separate rooms, and they can only hear each other's voices.) The experimenter simply tells the teacher to continue the experiment, no matter what the student cries out. Finally, the student stays quiet, and the teacher is unsure if the student is still alive. The experimenter urges the teacher to continue, and shock the student again if the student fails to answer.
An average of over 60% teachers, in the many reproductions this experiment, continued it to the end: where the teacher will administer the maximum shock of 450-volts three times, despite quiet from the student all three times. This is how I interpret the results of this experiment: to be good people, we must take an active stance. We must acknowledge our temptations, and we must be ready to accept any discomfort. For the sake of rightheousness, we must be a sort of masochist. We must be ready to boycot a racist bus system. We must be ready to be arrested. We must be ready to disagree with our friends. We must be ready to be totally embarrassed. Otherwise, if we don't, then we are hypocrites when we declare our love of goodness. Instead, we would rather be comfortable in our own evil.
IV.
Many want a democratic president, a 'liberal' president because they are very disgusted with the actions of the current 'conservative' president. They--both the supports of the Democrats and Republicans--are caught up in a gang-mentality. But true Democracy rejects the gang mentality. It assumes that people make up their own mind. It assumes that every individual is a separate political party.
I am leaning toward Barack Obama for the upcoming election. He seems like a smart, strong man. I enjoyed his racism speech, and his speech on religion a few years back. I need to do more research on him before I can say I truly want him for president. (By the way, where is the love for our local politicians?) But, even when I do this research, I must acknowledge that this research falls short of knowing the real man. Falls short of what he might do in a stressful, compromising situtation. If we have lived at all, we have had experiences where the actions of others surprise and disappoint us. Our parents, our friends. They do things that shatter our positive, angelic perception of them. We, too, have performed acts that suprise others. We ran into a compromising situation, and fell in danger of choosing the greater of two evils. And often times we did choose that evil.
It's 2:07pm, and I've got to go somewhere. So let's wrap this up--Choose well, not just in the election, but in life, period. Choose the choice that you know is right. Not the choice of our parents, or our society, necessarily. Choose the choice of righteousness. Choose even though your heart will break. Choose though your feet hurt. Choose though the world sneer at you with its beastly glee.
Let's assume that humanity is comprised of two elements: the Angelic, and Demonic. Let's define these elements in the most broad, agnostic way possible, ie. with angelic representing 'desirable behavior' and demonic representing 'undesirable behavior'
Positive theories of government inherently assume that anarchy hurts the public good. They assume that the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough to create chaos, unless a benevolent 'Big Brother' exists to sustain order. It assumes that the act of murder must be punished, or other potential murderers will kill without fear of reprisal.It assumes that banks must be regulated, or money will be misused and placed in inappropriate hands in inappropraite amounts.It assumes that the chaotic part of humanity exists as a substantial force to occasionally override the Angelic.
Yet, if the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough as a force, then the government--the 'Big Brother'--cannot be trusted as we would trust as a benevolent, omnipotent God. People make up governments, and therefore pollute that government with their flaws.
II.This all sounds pretty damn obvious. But we like to knock our politicians, or put them on pedestals. No middle ground. No acknowledging that 'They are who we would be in their situation.' The public, generally, paints their politicians as either Angels or Demons. The problem with this stems from the fact that 1) if we consider them angelic, we overlook their flaws. Democracy requires the public to be active in the government. Therefore, if the public official makes a mistake, the public should rectify this mistake. He is not God. He is only a man. And any one of us (of both sexes) are capable of doing his work about just as well. Indeed, if we can choose a good leader, and recognize the leader's good traits, then don't we have the potential to also having those traits?
2) If we paint the official as demonic, then we risk overlooking our own demons. We overlook that possibility that 'They are who we would be.' Again, you may disagree, considering that you are unlike the guy who spends $80,000 on hookers. But what if you were rich? What if you were tempted to do something that could damage your standard of living, your marriage, your life...and you had the chance to get away with it? You could cheat on your spouse, and never get caught. Would you do it? Did you do it? You could steal $1 million from the bank, and pay your way through college. You could cheat on the exam.
Again, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing worse than this is when a little power corrupts absolutely, and in the case of some, this is true.
Opportunity, power. "They are who we would be' Ignorance to this fact, is like a tapeworm. And when we pull that fucker out of our ass, it's gonna hurt.
It's gonna HURT. So, it takes courage to acknowledge and battle our personal flaws. It takes the ability to look at what's happening, and choose righteousness. Rather than allow righteousness to choose us. Because if we wait for a situation to arrive that allows us to display our angelic side, we often fall into a demonic state. The demonic state is more vigorous than the angelic in choosing us.
III.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram tested people's obeidience to authority. Look it up, for your own benefit, but I'll give you a summary. A subject is deceived into thinking he will be the 'teacher' while one of the experimenters pretends to be another subject, a student. The real student, the teacher, is told by the main experimenter to ask the student a number of questions. The teacher is to give the student an electric shock for every wrong answer provided, and each subsequent shock will be more powerful than the last. The student will get questions wrong on purpose. At one point, the student will feign a heart condition, and ask for mercy. (In the classic application of this experiment, the teacher and student are in separate rooms, and they can only hear each other's voices.) The experimenter simply tells the teacher to continue the experiment, no matter what the student cries out. Finally, the student stays quiet, and the teacher is unsure if the student is still alive. The experimenter urges the teacher to continue, and shock the student again if the student fails to answer.
An average of over 60% teachers, in the many reproductions this experiment, continued it to the end: where the teacher will administer the maximum shock of 450-volts three times, despite quiet from the student all three times. This is how I interpret the results of this experiment: to be good people, we must take an active stance. We must acknowledge our temptations, and we must be ready to accept any discomfort. For the sake of rightheousness, we must be a sort of masochist. We must be ready to boycot a racist bus system. We must be ready to be arrested. We must be ready to disagree with our friends. We must be ready to be totally embarrassed. Otherwise, if we don't, then we are hypocrites when we declare our love of goodness. Instead, we would rather be comfortable in our own evil.
IV.
Many want a democratic president, a 'liberal' president because they are very disgusted with the actions of the current 'conservative' president. They--both the supports of the Democrats and Republicans--are caught up in a gang-mentality. But true Democracy rejects the gang mentality. It assumes that people make up their own mind. It assumes that every individual is a separate political party.
I am leaning toward Barack Obama for the upcoming election. He seems like a smart, strong man. I enjoyed his racism speech, and his speech on religion a few years back. I need to do more research on him before I can say I truly want him for president. (By the way, where is the love for our local politicians?) But, even when I do this research, I must acknowledge that this research falls short of knowing the real man. Falls short of what he might do in a stressful, compromising situtation. If we have lived at all, we have had experiences where the actions of others surprise and disappoint us. Our parents, our friends. They do things that shatter our positive, angelic perception of them. We, too, have performed acts that suprise others. We ran into a compromising situation, and fell in danger of choosing the greater of two evils. And often times we did choose that evil.
It's 2:07pm, and I've got to go somewhere. So let's wrap this up--Choose well, not just in the election, but in life, period. Choose the choice that you know is right. Not the choice of our parents, or our society, necessarily. Choose the choice of righteousness. Choose even though your heart will break. Choose though your feet hurt. Choose though the world sneer at you with its beastly glee.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Corrupt Law Enforcement
The fact that an individual is a cop or guard means nothing in regard to their personality as human beings. The promise to serve and protect and whatever are only peripheral. What matters is who the law enforcement person is as a person.
Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.
For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.
Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.
And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.
When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.
People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."
When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.
Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.
Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.
For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.
Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.
And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.
When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.
People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."
When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.
Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Pity
A man on the 1 train asked the people in the car for money. He wore a yellow coat, and jeans and was white and skinny. He spoke in a monotone, almost computer-like voice, and paced the car abd with a script that came out so easily, so quickly, it must have been practiced. He must have been doing this all day.
"I'm going to be upfront with you," he said, and told us, the other people in the car and myself, that he had just gotten out of jail, and his family wouldn't let him live in their house. He has been staying at a shelter, which he gave the address to, where others had beat him up. He didn't want to return, and needed money for a better place to stay, which cost $15 a night (he gave the address to this too). Monday, he will get his old job back. He gave a lot of detail for a panhandler telling a story (he said he wasn't a panhandler, drug dealing, etc). Two white people across the aisle from me, dug into their pockets in the middle of his speech, and gave him wads of cash. Others on my left, and I am sure others throughout the train, gave him money too. I refrained from staring or making a show of staring.
Most panhandlers I have seen in NYC are black, and I wonder if the apparent, relative success of this guy was due either to the fact it is the beginning of the spring break tourist season, when people have more spare change, or his skin color, or both, or both other elements. The skin color element would have to be tested, and also the financial situation of the donators must be considered. A single mother working as a nurse would probably give less than a real estate salesman on vacation since the salesman will probably have more money. The nurse had herself and her children to think of if she feels inclined to give money to panhandlers and buskers. When people give money, they lose money, and the choice to give or take must be considered under this light.
Should a white panhandler get more money than a black panhandler on any given attempt for money, other elements besides skin color could play a factor. The delivery of the pandhandlers' requests for money could play a factor, if the white guy gave a better delivery than the black guy. His method of dress, the believability of his story. The white man I saw today had a slightly more detailed story than most panhandlers I've come across from. His included his work status, specific dates, cash amount he needed, and why he was homeless. Other panhandlers give a brief overview of their lives, but detail always help get people to understand where the storyteller is coming from. Many simply say that they have a terminal illness, that they have kids they need to feed. But leave it at that. They don't even say how
many kids they have. The man in the yellow jacket spoke the best script of them all.
A woman panhandler who frequents the Flushing, Queens area sits Indian-style and holds a sign saying she has children, and needs help feeding them. She is white (Flushing is an Asian neighborhood) and always slumps down, looking at the ground, and I've never heard her speak or seen her lips move whenever I pass her. My first impression of her and my plain idea of her is that she is a victim. By victim, I mean she is dependant on others fo survival when she very well could take care of herself but for some reason like laziness or mental barriers, she has trouble making ends meet. This is a one-way street in regard to give and take of resources. Of course, her life is bigger than days sitting on a sidewalk, holding a sign. I am ignorant of her childhood, the pain she might have gone through,, her strengths, and what she is working to get autonomy over her life, so she can better provide for her children.
She may be unemployed, or employed. She may take more from her kids than she gives. I am unsure. I only know that I am inclined to see her as weak. That is how her posture and script are designed. The same goes for the man in the yellow jacket. They both bring to mind images of those who need to be protected. They bring to mind the desire to support children and help the needy.
Across time and cultures, protecting the week had been an action looked upon a duty. What I wonder, though, is if the desire to help is based on actually caring for others, or the tinge of pity, or other self-serving motives, like using a donation to a charity as a tax write-off. I consider actual caring to be different from pity because pity is only a motivator to help others. Without pity, a person may keep their money in the prescence of a panhandler. Pity does not exist when the needy are not present. So as long as the needy are elsewhere, donators will fail to give to them because they (the donators) don't feel like they do.
Say we come across a starving child. Malnurished, suffering from Kwashiorkor, a condition where the child has too little protein in the system and has a swollen abdomen, though suffering from starvation. We will probably buy a Happy Meal for the kid, and call the police so that authorities can place the child with those who can provide for it. If we had the money, we may even offer to adopt it ourselves. Now, this is hypothetical.
We do all this because the child is present. Now, the starving children miles away--we know of their existance, but care little because they are not present. We need to be reminded by commercials on TV asking for 95 cents a daily. Upon viewing these commercials, we are struck by pity. And pity hurts. Without pity, a person will keep their money. Givers only give because their themselves hurt, and not so the needy give comfort. If we truly cared about starving African children, instead of spending money on going to the movies, we would use that money on the kids. Instead of overeating, we would give the extra food to the poor. Instead, people need to be stung by pity before they give money and food, so that the pity will go away, not our of any sincere care for the impoverished.
Now, a person who feels pity may be sincere in caring. It is just that for a strong feeling of empathy to occur, a person must consider how bad the other person feels. Without a consideration of the feelings of others, the action of giving is only done for the giver's sake--to reduce pity--though the panhandler reaps the physical benefits of giving.
"I'm going to be upfront with you," he said, and told us, the other people in the car and myself, that he had just gotten out of jail, and his family wouldn't let him live in their house. He has been staying at a shelter, which he gave the address to, where others had beat him up. He didn't want to return, and needed money for a better place to stay, which cost $15 a night (he gave the address to this too). Monday, he will get his old job back. He gave a lot of detail for a panhandler telling a story (he said he wasn't a panhandler, drug dealing, etc). Two white people across the aisle from me, dug into their pockets in the middle of his speech, and gave him wads of cash. Others on my left, and I am sure others throughout the train, gave him money too. I refrained from staring or making a show of staring.
Most panhandlers I have seen in NYC are black, and I wonder if the apparent, relative success of this guy was due either to the fact it is the beginning of the spring break tourist season, when people have more spare change, or his skin color, or both, or both other elements. The skin color element would have to be tested, and also the financial situation of the donators must be considered. A single mother working as a nurse would probably give less than a real estate salesman on vacation since the salesman will probably have more money. The nurse had herself and her children to think of if she feels inclined to give money to panhandlers and buskers. When people give money, they lose money, and the choice to give or take must be considered under this light.
Should a white panhandler get more money than a black panhandler on any given attempt for money, other elements besides skin color could play a factor. The delivery of the pandhandlers' requests for money could play a factor, if the white guy gave a better delivery than the black guy. His method of dress, the believability of his story. The white man I saw today had a slightly more detailed story than most panhandlers I've come across from. His included his work status, specific dates, cash amount he needed, and why he was homeless. Other panhandlers give a brief overview of their lives, but detail always help get people to understand where the storyteller is coming from. Many simply say that they have a terminal illness, that they have kids they need to feed. But leave it at that. They don't even say how
many kids they have. The man in the yellow jacket spoke the best script of them all.
A woman panhandler who frequents the Flushing, Queens area sits Indian-style and holds a sign saying she has children, and needs help feeding them. She is white (Flushing is an Asian neighborhood) and always slumps down, looking at the ground, and I've never heard her speak or seen her lips move whenever I pass her. My first impression of her and my plain idea of her is that she is a victim. By victim, I mean she is dependant on others fo survival when she very well could take care of herself but for some reason like laziness or mental barriers, she has trouble making ends meet. This is a one-way street in regard to give and take of resources. Of course, her life is bigger than days sitting on a sidewalk, holding a sign. I am ignorant of her childhood, the pain she might have gone through,, her strengths, and what she is working to get autonomy over her life, so she can better provide for her children.
She may be unemployed, or employed. She may take more from her kids than she gives. I am unsure. I only know that I am inclined to see her as weak. That is how her posture and script are designed. The same goes for the man in the yellow jacket. They both bring to mind images of those who need to be protected. They bring to mind the desire to support children and help the needy.
Across time and cultures, protecting the week had been an action looked upon a duty. What I wonder, though, is if the desire to help is based on actually caring for others, or the tinge of pity, or other self-serving motives, like using a donation to a charity as a tax write-off. I consider actual caring to be different from pity because pity is only a motivator to help others. Without pity, a person may keep their money in the prescence of a panhandler. Pity does not exist when the needy are not present. So as long as the needy are elsewhere, donators will fail to give to them because they (the donators) don't feel like they do.
Say we come across a starving child. Malnurished, suffering from Kwashiorkor, a condition where the child has too little protein in the system and has a swollen abdomen, though suffering from starvation. We will probably buy a Happy Meal for the kid, and call the police so that authorities can place the child with those who can provide for it. If we had the money, we may even offer to adopt it ourselves. Now, this is hypothetical.
We do all this because the child is present. Now, the starving children miles away--we know of their existance, but care little because they are not present. We need to be reminded by commercials on TV asking for 95 cents a daily. Upon viewing these commercials, we are struck by pity. And pity hurts. Without pity, a person will keep their money. Givers only give because their themselves hurt, and not so the needy give comfort. If we truly cared about starving African children, instead of spending money on going to the movies, we would use that money on the kids. Instead of overeating, we would give the extra food to the poor. Instead, people need to be stung by pity before they give money and food, so that the pity will go away, not our of any sincere care for the impoverished.
Now, a person who feels pity may be sincere in caring. It is just that for a strong feeling of empathy to occur, a person must consider how bad the other person feels. Without a consideration of the feelings of others, the action of giving is only done for the giver's sake--to reduce pity--though the panhandler reaps the physical benefits of giving.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Resolved: Organized Sports are More Dangerous Than Organized Religion
Written December 2006
Is there really any need for comparison? Really? Isn’t the main point we must consider is that people are crazy?
On the part of religion you’ve got
people blowing themselves up,
killing pretty much every person in Jerusalem during the crusades,
murdering no less 6 million in Europe,
and much death.
On the part of religion, you’ve got Fred Phelps and his congregation protesting the funerals of soldiers because the United States government doesn’t take a tougher stance on homosexuality.
Yes, yes, religion is more dangerous than sports on a sociological standpoint because God has been used for justification of mass slaughter. Not so with sports--at least not so often.
But look at organized sports. I once met a guy who played for the NFL who said that basically everybody there was a rapist.
You’ve got Mike Tyson—I don’t know if all the stories are true, but you’ve guy a million peoples saying that punches old women in the mouth, has bipolar disorder, threatened to murder his first wife.
And he’s a convicted rapist.
You’ve got Don King, who still, in the most sympathetic portrayal of him, comes off as really shady.
You’ve soccer riots, drunken fights. During the 1960s, in a boxing match, Bernardo Paret got tangled in the ropes, and his opponent, during the next 3 to 4 seconds, hit him 18 times before the referee pull him off. Paret died before he hit the canvas.
Beer, beer, beer, beer,
And traffic jams after a game, people just take your fucking time, if you take your time, then no one is going to crach, why don’t you understand that trying to squeeze through a small opening with cause problems
The only good thing that sports has done for us is that during a tampa bay buccaneers home game, two men got into a fight, and the security arrived, pulled out a tazer, and everyone in the surrounding seats crying
"TAZER"
"TAZER""TAZER"
Look, everyone, before you say sports are the downfall of civilization,
or religion is the cause of all of societies problems, just consider humanity by itself. People will kill you just to watch the blood pour out.
People rob from each other. They are untrustworthy, fake, selfish, domineering, abusive. If you give them the chance, they will rob you. If you give them the chance, and it serves their interests, they will do whatever they want to you. Even if it’s just for fun.
So let me review.
You’ve got Neo-Nazis in Europe hanging out at soccer matches and maliciously booing the non-white players.
You’ve got Ultraconversative Jews getting into fights with the participants in a gay-pride parade.
You’ve got The Tampa Bay Devils Rays, and they haven’t had a winning season in history.
And you’ve priests, from the Roman Catholic Church, my church, diddling little boys.
Obviously when they were weighing eternal damnation with their immediate urges, they decided "To Hell with Jesus."
Is there really any need for comparison? Really? Isn’t the main point we must consider is that people are crazy?
On the part of religion you’ve got
people blowing themselves up,
killing pretty much every person in Jerusalem during the crusades,
murdering no less 6 million in Europe,
and much death.
On the part of religion, you’ve got Fred Phelps and his congregation protesting the funerals of soldiers because the United States government doesn’t take a tougher stance on homosexuality.
Yes, yes, religion is more dangerous than sports on a sociological standpoint because God has been used for justification of mass slaughter. Not so with sports--at least not so often.
But look at organized sports. I once met a guy who played for the NFL who said that basically everybody there was a rapist.
You’ve got Mike Tyson—I don’t know if all the stories are true, but you’ve guy a million peoples saying that punches old women in the mouth, has bipolar disorder, threatened to murder his first wife.
And he’s a convicted rapist.
You’ve got Don King, who still, in the most sympathetic portrayal of him, comes off as really shady.
You’ve soccer riots, drunken fights. During the 1960s, in a boxing match, Bernardo Paret got tangled in the ropes, and his opponent, during the next 3 to 4 seconds, hit him 18 times before the referee pull him off. Paret died before he hit the canvas.
Beer, beer, beer, beer,
And traffic jams after a game, people just take your fucking time, if you take your time, then no one is going to crach, why don’t you understand that trying to squeeze through a small opening with cause problems
The only good thing that sports has done for us is that during a tampa bay buccaneers home game, two men got into a fight, and the security arrived, pulled out a tazer, and everyone in the surrounding seats crying
"TAZER"
"TAZER""TAZER"
Look, everyone, before you say sports are the downfall of civilization,
or religion is the cause of all of societies problems, just consider humanity by itself. People will kill you just to watch the blood pour out.
People rob from each other. They are untrustworthy, fake, selfish, domineering, abusive. If you give them the chance, they will rob you. If you give them the chance, and it serves their interests, they will do whatever they want to you. Even if it’s just for fun.
So let me review.
You’ve got Neo-Nazis in Europe hanging out at soccer matches and maliciously booing the non-white players.
You’ve got Ultraconversative Jews getting into fights with the participants in a gay-pride parade.
You’ve got The Tampa Bay Devils Rays, and they haven’t had a winning season in history.
And you’ve priests, from the Roman Catholic Church, my church, diddling little boys.
Obviously when they were weighing eternal damnation with their immediate urges, they decided "To Hell with Jesus."
Resolved: Everyone is an asshole once you get to know them
Written April, 2007
Ladies and gentlemen of the Philolexian society, arguing against this resolution feels futile, but I’m doing it anyway. And I will ask you to be patient because at first it’s going to sound like I am arguing in the affirmative.
In a stand-up performance of his called Bigger and Blacker, Chris Rock said that when you get into a relationship with somebody, you’re not really meeting the person; you’re meeting a quote-unquote, "representative." You’re meeting a preconceived image of that person, which he or she shows the world. That image is how the person would like to be seen. And that, at lot of times, is true. When we meet a person and we get a first impression, but that first impression is always in a precarious position. This is because the image tends to be an act, and, there will be moments when the act shuts down.
If you want to know a person—for real—observe them in a war zone. See how they handle abject poverty. Have them make Sophie’s choice. Or, better yet, see them in an opportunity to gain personally from hurting other people. And that’s what being an asshole is about—personal benefit at the expense of others. So if you want to see if someone is an asshole or not, you give them an opportunity to hurt others when something can be gained. And many people, you put them the opportunity and they’ll show you textbook definition of asshole.
I’ve heard of people killing each other simply out of anger, out of petty pride. In Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night, he made reference to two prisoners at a concentration camp—A father and son. And the son stole the father’s food rations. No remorse. It was every man for himself. And in my life I have seen that sort of thing in many places. Not the same situation or arrangement, but events that included one person betraying another. Even between family members. Consider the case of Susan Smith, who, in 1994, drowned her two sons, and tried to cover it up by saying that a black guy had kidnapped them. According the lawyers who prosecuted her, she got rid of her children in other to seem more attractive an ex-lover. The fact she had already had kids was a reason for him breaking up with her.
And that’s the kind of thing that can happen. A family will live together for years, eat together, go on vacations together—knowing each other for decades—and then one day, something happens the whole relationship is changed. One person does something absolutely disgusting, absolutely vitriolic and unforgivable. And no one would have been able to predict it. But, from them on, the relationship between those family members becomes all about the single moment that reveals the truth. So I concede that a large number of people are assholes.
It’s really safe to say that if the balance of power in history were reversed, we’d still have the same kinds of things happening. If it were convenient for Jews to massacre Christians, they’d have done it. If it were convenient for Africans to enslave Europeans, they’d have done it. The way these incidences played out in reality were all about convenience.
But is there is still something I can’t let go of, and that is the evidence of sincere goodness. To return to examples of families, there are people who stick together during terrible circumstances. They are young fathers who stick by the mothers during an unexpected pregnancy. I met a mother, 50 years old, who, in order to support her sons, worked two jobs. Monday through Friday, she went to sleep from 1 to 2am, and woke up at 6am. And she cleaned the house. The only thing she expected from her kids were good grades. She had no regrets.
And remember the Subway Superman? Wesley Autrey. The most amazing thing is that he did it for a stranger. And the money he received from rich people because of his good deed, he deserved it, he’s got kids to feed. The President mentioned him during a State of the Union address. Hey, huess what, assholes of the world, learn to be good people, and maybe you, too, will get a shout-out during the State of the Union address. Fucking A.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Philolexian society, arguing against this resolution feels futile, but I’m doing it anyway. And I will ask you to be patient because at first it’s going to sound like I am arguing in the affirmative.
In a stand-up performance of his called Bigger and Blacker, Chris Rock said that when you get into a relationship with somebody, you’re not really meeting the person; you’re meeting a quote-unquote, "representative." You’re meeting a preconceived image of that person, which he or she shows the world. That image is how the person would like to be seen. And that, at lot of times, is true. When we meet a person and we get a first impression, but that first impression is always in a precarious position. This is because the image tends to be an act, and, there will be moments when the act shuts down.
If you want to know a person—for real—observe them in a war zone. See how they handle abject poverty. Have them make Sophie’s choice. Or, better yet, see them in an opportunity to gain personally from hurting other people. And that’s what being an asshole is about—personal benefit at the expense of others. So if you want to see if someone is an asshole or not, you give them an opportunity to hurt others when something can be gained. And many people, you put them the opportunity and they’ll show you textbook definition of asshole.
I’ve heard of people killing each other simply out of anger, out of petty pride. In Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night, he made reference to two prisoners at a concentration camp—A father and son. And the son stole the father’s food rations. No remorse. It was every man for himself. And in my life I have seen that sort of thing in many places. Not the same situation or arrangement, but events that included one person betraying another. Even between family members. Consider the case of Susan Smith, who, in 1994, drowned her two sons, and tried to cover it up by saying that a black guy had kidnapped them. According the lawyers who prosecuted her, she got rid of her children in other to seem more attractive an ex-lover. The fact she had already had kids was a reason for him breaking up with her.
And that’s the kind of thing that can happen. A family will live together for years, eat together, go on vacations together—knowing each other for decades—and then one day, something happens the whole relationship is changed. One person does something absolutely disgusting, absolutely vitriolic and unforgivable. And no one would have been able to predict it. But, from them on, the relationship between those family members becomes all about the single moment that reveals the truth. So I concede that a large number of people are assholes.
It’s really safe to say that if the balance of power in history were reversed, we’d still have the same kinds of things happening. If it were convenient for Jews to massacre Christians, they’d have done it. If it were convenient for Africans to enslave Europeans, they’d have done it. The way these incidences played out in reality were all about convenience.
But is there is still something I can’t let go of, and that is the evidence of sincere goodness. To return to examples of families, there are people who stick together during terrible circumstances. They are young fathers who stick by the mothers during an unexpected pregnancy. I met a mother, 50 years old, who, in order to support her sons, worked two jobs. Monday through Friday, she went to sleep from 1 to 2am, and woke up at 6am. And she cleaned the house. The only thing she expected from her kids were good grades. She had no regrets.
And remember the Subway Superman? Wesley Autrey. The most amazing thing is that he did it for a stranger. And the money he received from rich people because of his good deed, he deserved it, he’s got kids to feed. The President mentioned him during a State of the Union address. Hey, huess what, assholes of the world, learn to be good people, and maybe you, too, will get a shout-out during the State of the Union address. Fucking A.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Links to news articles
Life sucks in Kenya
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_af/kenya_on_the_brink
Life sucks out west
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm
The most interesting thing about Staten Island: The Ninja Bandit
http://wcbstv.com/local/staten.island.ninja.2.624099.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_af/kenya_on_the_brink
Life sucks out west
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm
The most interesting thing about Staten Island: The Ninja Bandit
http://wcbstv.com/local/staten.island.ninja.2.624099.html
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Two Hypotheses
1) Immoral acts by “religious” people stem from aspects of the person, not of the religious text. From what I’ve heard, most criticism against organized religion roughly states that religion (the Abrahamic religions in particular) justify immoral acts such as genocide. For instance, certain statements made in the Qur’an calling for a defense of the faith, and stories in the Tenakh (Old Testament) about the Israelites eliminating entire tribes seem to prove these critics right. The passages can be interpreted as calling for mass murder.
I believe, instead, that elements in the environment and the personal thoughts of person cause these immoral acts (which are immoral by a conventional 21st century American viewpoint). For example, if Europeans with guns come to Africa, and their economy can be boosted by the use of slaves, they will be tempted to use the Africans for this purpose. Yes, Europeans and Americans used the idea that Africans could be enslaved because they were thought to be descended from Ham, but this use of the idea was stimulated by greed. While religion certainly has an effect (which is difficult to quantify), the opportunities in the environment play a stronger role than the religious text. Religion is secondary, though its presence is constant.
People, not their words, are the direct cause of evil.
2) If black people had the opportunity, they would have enslaved whites.
The way it actually occurred was all a matter of opportunity, and chance. People are people. One blood--for better and worse.
I believe, instead, that elements in the environment and the personal thoughts of person cause these immoral acts (which are immoral by a conventional 21st century American viewpoint). For example, if Europeans with guns come to Africa, and their economy can be boosted by the use of slaves, they will be tempted to use the Africans for this purpose. Yes, Europeans and Americans used the idea that Africans could be enslaved because they were thought to be descended from Ham, but this use of the idea was stimulated by greed. While religion certainly has an effect (which is difficult to quantify), the opportunities in the environment play a stronger role than the religious text. Religion is secondary, though its presence is constant.
People, not their words, are the direct cause of evil.
2) If black people had the opportunity, they would have enslaved whites.
The way it actually occurred was all a matter of opportunity, and chance. People are people. One blood--for better and worse.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
A certain man
He said,
"You wanna get a woman,
you got to be willing to punch her,
so willing that when you have to punch her,
punching her is the first thing to come to your mind,
and when you do punch her, you have no problem punching her.
Punching her is the easy thing, rather than holding back.
You never see wimps getting laid,
or, if they do, they have to be rich,
so the women come to him, and leech off his money.
Wives of rich men,
strippers at a strip club.
The same kind of person, really.
They leech off a man's money
because they can. If they were ugly,
they'd be fine with working at the supermarket,
but they happen to have a round ass,
so they shake it. And they get their pick of man.
Of poor men, only rapists get laid.
Of men, they are the only ones who really try.
The wonderful thing is that the women
tend to love these rapist types--if by accident.
Even if the ladies, once the relationship,
goes sour, would rather die than be in the room with him,
the initial attraction--that spark that led her to him--
comes from the same place that enables him to smother her with a pillow,
and call her dumb and ugly. The same spark that gets him to be funny,
and sweet, and so manly and strong is the spark
that gets him to place a bullet in her purse when
she's not looking, and to follow her to her work,
and be outside of her home when she's leaving to hang out with friends.
Women never bitch about boring, nice guys. Not after the break up.
They only bitch out the mean, abusive ones,
who stole their necklaces, and cheat on them with their best friends.
The women bitch because they liked those guys.
Maybe they still do.
They usually do.
The boring ones are forgotten, if they even existed.
Women only remember--and love--the men who'd give them black eyes."
"And what kind of man are you?" his friend said.
The man showed his wedding ring. "The punching kind."
"That's sick," his friend said.
"It's the truth, you virgin-faggot."
"You wanna get a woman,
you got to be willing to punch her,
so willing that when you have to punch her,
punching her is the first thing to come to your mind,
and when you do punch her, you have no problem punching her.
Punching her is the easy thing, rather than holding back.
You never see wimps getting laid,
or, if they do, they have to be rich,
so the women come to him, and leech off his money.
Wives of rich men,
strippers at a strip club.
The same kind of person, really.
They leech off a man's money
because they can. If they were ugly,
they'd be fine with working at the supermarket,
but they happen to have a round ass,
so they shake it. And they get their pick of man.
Of poor men, only rapists get laid.
Of men, they are the only ones who really try.
The wonderful thing is that the women
tend to love these rapist types--if by accident.
Even if the ladies, once the relationship,
goes sour, would rather die than be in the room with him,
the initial attraction--that spark that led her to him--
comes from the same place that enables him to smother her with a pillow,
and call her dumb and ugly. The same spark that gets him to be funny,
and sweet, and so manly and strong is the spark
that gets him to place a bullet in her purse when
she's not looking, and to follow her to her work,
and be outside of her home when she's leaving to hang out with friends.
Women never bitch about boring, nice guys. Not after the break up.
They only bitch out the mean, abusive ones,
who stole their necklaces, and cheat on them with their best friends.
The women bitch because they liked those guys.
Maybe they still do.
They usually do.
The boring ones are forgotten, if they even existed.
Women only remember--and love--the men who'd give them black eyes."
"And what kind of man are you?" his friend said.
The man showed his wedding ring. "The punching kind."
"That's sick," his friend said.
"It's the truth, you virgin-faggot."
Friday, December 7, 2007
Sexual Perversion at Columbia University
(Written around early March, 2007)
A November 2006 article for the New York Daily News said that Columbia University is a cesspool of S&M, sex in the Library, and naked parties. Said one student, “You go to dinner and then have sex.” Ladies and gentlemen, I am appalled at this university, at the students, at you, for not inviting me to these functions. Not that I’d do that shit. But be a little polite. Be considerate.
“Hey, want to participate in an orgy?” you say.
“Sorry, ****, but I can’t. Too much homework.”
**************************
Okay--the preceding text was my attempt to be funny (except the Daily News did write such an article). But, really, tell me how “hooking up” works. I’m lost on the subject. How do you go to dinner and then have sex?
The best advice I’ve heard—solid advice—is to be friendly, polite, and straightforward. Reasonably aggressive. Unfortunately, some men take this too far. Some go up to a woman and simply ask for sex. That’s weird. It’s bad to be the fifty-year-old standing on Broadway checking out college girls. It’s bad to be the drunken guy hitting on all the ladies at parties. It’s bad to be the class rapist.
I feel awful for women who have to put up with creeps. Butt-grabbing, staring, rapist creeps. I hear these stories—the non-so-serious and the serious—and I get a lukewarm tennis ball in my gut. These incidences are an invasion of a person’s property. If you were to grab a stranger’s ass without permission, you’re showing this person that you have no respect for them, that you think of that person as a means of getting off; their life, to you, is insignificant. It’s even worse when you’ve got stalker-type love. Stalker-type love exceeds lust in intensity, and can involve various types of stalking…such as internet stalking. O_o’
But it’s more complicated than men being perverts or possessive. Understand. In my old high school, I once saw this guy toss a girl cheek-first into a brick wall as if he were trying to put her in the hospital. Her whole body was flat against the brick wall, and she was laughing the whole time. This was flirting to those people. He was wooing her. (I repeat: he chucked her like a bag of sand.)
And, during other school days, other guys said things like, “Come here before I hit you!” or “Let me put my dick right here.” And this worked for them. Some girls were okay with that kind of stuff.
“But,” you may ask. “How can you stand here and scrutinize how other people—especially other men—go on with themselves sexually? You probably have the same thoughts. Haven’t you acted creepy?”
That’s not even a question. I’m 19 and male. Of course I want to fuck somebody, and of course I’ve acted creepy.
You may wonder how those incidences ended up. Well, dear reader, it’s none of your business. Because it’s not.
Still, I must say: I’ve never put my hands on someone without her and me already having that kind of understanding between us (no serious attachment necessary).
Anyway, imagine the conversations we’re supposed to have at naked parties.
A November 2006 article for the New York Daily News said that Columbia University is a cesspool of S&M, sex in the Library, and naked parties. Said one student, “You go to dinner and then have sex.” Ladies and gentlemen, I am appalled at this university, at the students, at you, for not inviting me to these functions. Not that I’d do that shit. But be a little polite. Be considerate.
“Hey, want to participate in an orgy?” you say.
“Sorry, ****, but I can’t. Too much homework.”
**************************
Okay--the preceding text was my attempt to be funny (except the Daily News did write such an article). But, really, tell me how “hooking up” works. I’m lost on the subject. How do you go to dinner and then have sex?
The best advice I’ve heard—solid advice—is to be friendly, polite, and straightforward. Reasonably aggressive. Unfortunately, some men take this too far. Some go up to a woman and simply ask for sex. That’s weird. It’s bad to be the fifty-year-old standing on Broadway checking out college girls. It’s bad to be the drunken guy hitting on all the ladies at parties. It’s bad to be the class rapist.
I feel awful for women who have to put up with creeps. Butt-grabbing, staring, rapist creeps. I hear these stories—the non-so-serious and the serious—and I get a lukewarm tennis ball in my gut. These incidences are an invasion of a person’s property. If you were to grab a stranger’s ass without permission, you’re showing this person that you have no respect for them, that you think of that person as a means of getting off; their life, to you, is insignificant. It’s even worse when you’ve got stalker-type love. Stalker-type love exceeds lust in intensity, and can involve various types of stalking…such as internet stalking. O_o’
But it’s more complicated than men being perverts or possessive. Understand. In my old high school, I once saw this guy toss a girl cheek-first into a brick wall as if he were trying to put her in the hospital. Her whole body was flat against the brick wall, and she was laughing the whole time. This was flirting to those people. He was wooing her. (I repeat: he chucked her like a bag of sand.)
And, during other school days, other guys said things like, “Come here before I hit you!” or “Let me put my dick right here.” And this worked for them. Some girls were okay with that kind of stuff.
“But,” you may ask. “How can you stand here and scrutinize how other people—especially other men—go on with themselves sexually? You probably have the same thoughts. Haven’t you acted creepy?”
That’s not even a question. I’m 19 and male. Of course I want to fuck somebody, and of course I’ve acted creepy.
You may wonder how those incidences ended up. Well, dear reader, it’s none of your business. Because it’s not.
Still, I must say: I’ve never put my hands on someone without her and me already having that kind of understanding between us (no serious attachment necessary).
Anyway, imagine the conversations we’re supposed to have at naked parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)