Archive for the 'Ethics & Morality' Category

Personal Principles

Posted in 2016 Election, Ethics & Morality on August 17th, 2016

You’re personal principles are based in hubris and selfishness, and not a small amount of the childishness we’ve come to expect from Liberals and Progressives, if you feel compelled to place them before the needs of your people, your culture, and your nation.

personal principles are often the principles of selfishnessYour Personal Principles?

Yes, I’m talking about the selfish children of the #NeverTrump “movement” – the people who are willing to allow Hillary to be elected when we have an open seat on the Supreme Court because they’re personal principles are offended somehow by Donald Trump. I’m talking about the people who’ve in order to feel good about themselves, either out of raw pettiness over the primary’s results or out of some delusion of moral superiority, have turned their backs upon America.

These are people who think solely or primarily of themselves and mistake and inflate the value of their own goals, feelings, and beliefs. They do not understand or do not care that one’s personal principles must always be subordinate to the good of the people whenever there is a threat to the latter. They either do not know or choose to ignore that there is no honor in “doing the right thing” when doing so harms the innocent. In that there is only hubris.

Understand that it doesn’t matter if you like Trump; I don’t. Nor does it matter whether or not you’ll think he’ll be a good or even marginal POTUS; I rather doubt it. What matters is that you accept the will of the majority of the American people, form up, and block Hillary’s path to the White House. What matters is that you reach deep inside yourself and find the patriotism to dirty your hands, mind, and if necessary your soul for the sake of your people, your people’s children, and your people’s children’s children. What matters is that you not become the generation that caused freedom to become extinct.

Related Reading:

Loyalty 3.0: How to Revolutionize Customer and Employee Engagement with Big Data and Gamification
Positive Parenting Made Easy: Instructions and Tips for Practicing These Principles When Raising Your Children (Parenting, Positive Parenting, Peaceful Parenting, Happy Kids, Loving Parent)
Principles of Modern Chemistry
A Child's First Book of Trump

Unreasoning Largess

Posted in Ethics & Morality, Politics, Religion, Society on September 23rd, 2015

Some things pull at one’s heartstrings and evoke thoughts and feeling that, at first pass, seem quite good for the state of the society one lives in. Sadly, some of those things are wrong and/or manipulative and go against the underpinnings of reality. Worse, far too often those things which are wrong and/or manipulative become entrenched in the collective psyches of whole demographics of the population.

You don't need a reason to help peopleSupposedly You Don’t Need A Reason To Help People

A case in point is “You Don’t Need A Reason To Help People.” It’s nothing but a call for totally unreasoning largess and it has no basis in fact or human thought and logic processes. People reason and, hence, need reason for any and all actions, though it’s true that many of those reasons are internalized and/or subconscious in nature. Even the insane have and need reasons for doing whatever they do. They’re just not reasons that most of the rest of us have the data to understand.

Reasonable Charity

Some of the various real reason for people helping other specific people or specific groups or classes of people are:

  • Either seeking the blessings of the God(s) or avoiding punishment by their the God(s) through acts of charity;
  • Seeking approval of other people or avoiding disapproval other people through acts of charity;
  • Assuaging feelings of guilt brought upon by segments of their society’s disdain for wealth or material success;
  • Because it feels good to do so, either through feelings of superiority and self-validation or a more general feeling of worth.

Also, in all reasoning cases, the person needs to believe or to convince themselves that the largess they give has some meaning and will have some quantifiable and qualifiable benefit. It’s somewhat rare for normal people to just render aid, assistance, and charity when they know it will do no good – unless there’s a unrelated or tangentially related benefit to themselves for doing so.

Entrenched In Liberalism & Progressivism

The myth of “You Don’t Need A Reason To Help People” is sadly entrenched in the collective psyches of the Liberals and Progressives. It, mostly at an unconscious level, forms one of the underpinning of their dogma and colors and informs a great deal of their agenda.

Liberals and Progressives actively reject the fact that there is always a need for reason for largess. Even more, they reject and quite stridently disdain and denounce the idea that the person needs to believe or to convince themselves that the largess they give has some meaning and will have some quantifiable and qualifiable benefit. They believe that such things are discrimination.

This is a large part of why the Liberals and Progressives so strongly demand that voluntary charity be replaced by largess by fiat. As they believe that there should be no reason for charity or qualifier to how, to whom, or how much largess is granted, any reason applied to such is seen by them, instead, to be reason to withhold such largess.

The greatest irony in this is that these same Liberals and Progressives have no qualms about applying social pressure – approval or disapproval – to goad people into granting such largess, and are the ones who foster feelings of guilt in those of the societies they live within who have achieved wealth or material success.

~*~

Sadly, this isn’t really correctable. It can only be ameliorated through educating people in reality. This is the sad effect of something that sounds so good but which is false.

Related Reading:

I Like Giving: The Transforming Power of a Generous Life
Subsidies of the Rich and Famous
The Rise of the Military Welfare State
For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law

Is Incest Best?

Posted in Ethics & Morality, Politics, Society on July 1st, 2015

LGBT Rainbow FlagIn the wake of the SCOTUS declaring that all 50 states must allow queers to marry it is now, more than ever, a good time to ask, is incest best. Should you put your sister or daughter to the test? Is it true that the family that lays together stays together?

We’ve been greasing that slope for decades and it now the time to ask these questions.

Really! Given the dogma surrounding the queers’ demands, i.e., “Love is Love,” and that what two consenting adults do to and with each other carnally is nobody’s business, what basis are we left with to say that, as long as your sister and/or daughter is of the age of consent, it’s legally wrong to fornicate with her?

We certainly can no longer claim to disallow adult – as defined as of the Age of Consent – incest must be illegal because it is immoral; proponents of “sexual freedom” have declaimed time and time again that morality must not be the basis of law. Likewise, we no longer claim to disallow incest because it is abhorrent and repugnant to the majority of Americans; homosexuality is similarly abhorrent and repugnant to the majority of Americans and they are allowed to sodomize each other and marry each other. So what are we left with?

Yep! Right now there’s probably a Liberal reading this whose head is about to explode because he, she, or it will not or cannot think beyond their hatred of normative American culture.

Of course, consensual incest between adults is legal already legal in a surprising number of nations, including those in Europe. Indeed, in Germany where incest – there defined solely as vaginal intercourse – is illegal, the government’s Ethics Council recommended last year to legalize incest between adult siblings, stating that it is not appropriate for a criminal law to preserve a social taboo. They further claimed that the law against incest “put couples in a tragic situation”.

In the case of consensual incest among adult siblings, neither the fear of negative consequences for the family, nor the possibility of the birth of children from such incestuous relationships can justify a criminal prohibition.

The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination has more weight in such cases than the abstract protection of the family.

The German Ethics Council’s recommendation sounds like a disturbingly familiar and horrifically successful argument to me. At this point what counterargument are we left with?

And sadly, the laws on the books concerning incest in the United States vary greatly from state to state, with some forms of incest already being perfectly legal in more jurisdictions than one might think or hope for. Hence, the same foundation as that used to make queer marriage the law of the land has already been laid.

Face it, with the Liberals and Progressives stripping of “bright lines” from the law there’s nothing left to stop incest between adults from being made legal. Nor is there any still legally sound means of preventing other, similar atrocities from being legalized, especially when they are based solely upon arbitrary social conventions and mores.

Related Reading:

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
America
Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
I Am a Liberal: A Conservative's Guide to Dealing With Nature's Most Irritating Mistake
In Defense of a Liberal Education