The question arises though of whether we’ve all failed to fully grasp and internalize both sides of this ethical equation.

Have we focused too much upon the primary action and not enough upon the reciprocal reaction? Have we also failed to recognize that it functions much as an engine, a natural law that we’ve placed too many “higher order” considerations upon?

Any of the variations of, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” may serve well as admonishment or exhortation to right behavior by people, but we seem to fail to connect it with, “As you sow, so shall you reap,” which common sense tell us must be the reciprocating side of this ethical equation.

The greatest problem this schism causes is the cognitive dissonance it causes is in those cases where the primary action was a negative or harmful one.  This causes both internal conflict and hampers effective mitigation of the negative or harmful effects of the primary actor’s actions.

If the theory of Reciprocal Ethics is true than it must be true in all its parts or be claimed false. Therefor, natural law would require that negative actions lead to similarly negative responses as a normal course of events and to break this cycle requires conscious decision to engage in an unnatural course of response which might very well, due to its unnaturalness, be misunderstood as weakness, vulnerability or surrender of the point in contention by the original actor.

Some few in the course of history have understood this, though with mixed results.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

– Mahatma Gandhi (Disputed)

Gandhi, through his cult of personality and abetted by the nature and proclivities of the two cultures involved and the greater scope of world events, succeeded in breaking the natural laws of reciprocity and doing so in a manner that achieved his victory, India’s Independence from Britain.

Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.

– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

MLK seemed to understand the basic equation of reciprocity but did not seem to understand that sense was not what was called for, since sense would lead people to follow the natural order of action and reciprocation. As can be seen by the largely unalleviated and unabated levels of racial angst and hatred among the Black population in America, despite the legal and pragmatic success of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King was largely unsuccessful in his prescription.

One has to accept the basic nature of the reciprocal engine that is the foundation of Reciprocal Ethics and fully understand the difficulties involved in convincing people to behave otherwise.

The fashion industry, along with its co-conspirators in the weight loss industry, are the ones that have for decades promulgated an impossible beauty ideal and profited immensely off the resulting psychological damage caused to whole generations of women.

Young women like the ones in the images above are the true fashion victims and, while they need help and support more than anything else, their plight cries out for retributive justice.

Stripping these creatures running the fashion industry and dousing them with cocktail of DMSO, dichloromethane, phosphatidylcholine, and sodium deoxycholate sounds like a perfectly fitting punishment since it would destroy their skin, literally melt away their subcutaneous fat, cause extensive liver damage (Acute Hepatitis), and cause ocular nerve degeneration (Optic Neuropathy).

NOTE: DMSO and dichloromethane are each commonly available solvents. Phosphatidylcholine and sodium deoxycholate come pre-combined as a “fat melting injection,” Lipostabil.

It’d be something like a time lapse of anorexia with a few added “bonuses” that would make them better visual warning against others engaging in their behavior. The general loss of dexterity and ocular damage would also prevent them from doing further harm.

Sadly, not only would this form of retribution be illegal, it would be very difficult to carry out. As so often is the case in this sad and degenerate world, justice must bow down before pragmatism.

As these creatures profit from all forms of human misery and have repeatedly shown that when there is not enough of it to pad to their wallets they will actively strive to create that misery by willfully escalating conflicts they have become a force for abject Evil.

I truly do not believe that any man or woman who actively or tacitly supports them in any way, even by the merely failing to strike against them when and as possible, can expect anything other than disapprobation and/or damnation from their God(s).

This is especially true when the solution to the problem of these disgusting scavengers is two-fold yet simple in execution:

1. No government, military, or aid agency should allow the operatives of CNN or any other media outlet access to any situation or theater where people are endangered in any manner until after all needed efforts have been completed. If these filth complain, they should be given one warning. If they ignore this warning or complain a second time, their entire field team should be executed on the spot.
2. No person should ever lend any form of aid or comfort to these media vultures. They should never be provided with food, shelter, transport, or information of any sort. If and when the vermin complain, their equipment should be taken from them or destroyed and they should be driven off, using whatever level of force is required to accomplish this.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men and women do nothing and the God(s) will surely judge each of us by our both are actions and when we chose not to act.

By her own pride-filled admission she’s not even limiting this, as many do, to cases of rape or endangerment to life of the mother.

No; this infanticidal monster is talking about abortion on demand for the sake of women’s convenience being a good thing, a moral choice!

Abortion has value. It is not just the lesser of two evils, but abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself. And I am not talking about cases of rape or life endangerment. I’m talking about everyday women – you, maybe, or your mom, friend, sister, wife, girlfriend, roommate – who simply know that they do not want to be pregnant, and do not want to parent this child, at this time.

The one in three women in America who decide that abortion is right for them deserve to be recognized as people, as full moral agents, and not to be treated like children to need to be taught right from wrong. Women deserve easy access to high-quality, affordable abortion care, without waiting periods, and without biased counseling.

Until abortion is recognized as having value in and of itself, we’re going to continue to battle the Mike Pences, Chris Smiths, and Scott Roeders of the world.

– Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup

There is one portion of this creature’s drivel that can actually agree with, that the women seeking abortions should not be treated like children who need to be taught Right from Wrong. They are, in fact, full moral agents, are fully culpable for their choices and actions, should be recognized as such by Americans, and deserve to reap the full consequences of those choices and actions.

Gina D’Andrea Weatherup Thinks This Is a Good, Moral Choice

I firmly believe and advocate that, while creatures like this Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup are allowed to walk free among people of America and promulgate this infanticidal ideology that killing unborn babies is a good thing, our nation needs more people like Mike Pence, Chris Smith, and Scott Roeder. It especially needs more heroic martyrs such as Mr. Roeder who sacrificed himself in order save countless babies from Late-Term Abortion aka Partial-Birth Abortion.

Don’t get me wrong; I have some pity for the girls and women who have either chosen or been coerced by Planned Parenthood’s “Counselors” into choosing to abort their children as a horrible, but still lesser, evil. I don’t even have a strong hatred for Planned Parenthood as a whole; the bulk of their services being necessary gynecological care for poor women.

Things like this Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup, however, do not deserve pity, compassion, or mercy from anyone and should not be considered just as valid targets, but as primary targets in Americans’ battle for the unborn.

~*~

I can’t help wonder if, while in their nice, shady backyard watching their cute little daughter play, Gina and her husband, Chris – I’m assuming that they’re married since she appended his surname to her own – discuss when to have that talk with her. You know, the one about “the birds and the bees, and the D & C’s.”

I also wonder if they’ve preformulated an answer in case their daughter ever asks, “How many of my brothers or sisters did you kill, mommy?”

~*~

But she is, in a twisted sort of way, right. Abortion has value. Gina and Chris’ house looks like it probably cost around 500K and abortion and her depraved manner of advocating for it helped pay for it.

This was an unacceptable but not unexpected turn of events.

Sadly, society has degenerated and organizations like the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles only see the fact that this vile buck nigger can play football very well and bring more money into their coffers.

Personally, since the legal system failed America, I firmly believe that it’s up to the American people to exact retribution upon Sick Vick and those who’ve enabled him to escape true justice.

In simpler and blunter terms, remove Vick’s ability to run and throw – whether through killing him or mutilating his arms and legs (my personal preference) – and the NFL would have no further use for him and justice would be served.

What was unexpected – though I suppose it really shouldn’t have been – was President Obama going out of his way to personally thank and commend the Eagles’ owner, Jeffrey Lurie for hiring this ghetto trash.

Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie was surprised to hear the president’s voice on the phone. Barack Obama had two things to discuss with Lurie: the redemption of Michael Vick and the alternative-energy plans Lurie unveiled this fall for Lincoln Financial Field. I talked about the Vick story on NBC last night.

“The president wanted to talk about two things, but the first was Michael,” Lurie told me. “He said, ‘So many people who serve time never get a fair second chance. He was … passionate about it. He said it’s never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail. And he was happy that we did something on such a national stage that showed our faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall.”

Lurie said Obama and he talked football. “He’s a real football fan,” Lurie said. “He loves his Bears. He really follows it. He knew how Michael was doing. It was really interesting to hear.”

In sporting terms this is known as an Unforced Error. There was no valid reason for Obama to have interjected his praise of Vick and Lurie’s hiring of him into a call about the Eagles’ plans to use alternative energy sources at their stadium.

One of Sick Vick’s Surviving Victims

This Is What Obama Is Supporting With His Praise

While there are no valid reasons for the POTUS to laud the Philadelphia Eagles hiring of the sick and vicious felon, Michael Vick – or for any human being possessed of a conscience to do so – there are reasons and/or excuses why Barack Obama might choose to vocally endorse the dog killer’s actions and those of his enablers.

Black Is Black

As Whoopi Goldberg said during her earlier defense of Sick Vick’s dog fighting, such cruel bloodsports are part of the Black Identity and Barack Obama has gone out of his way to self-identify as wholly and solely Black.

It may be that, as part of his expunging his White heritage and adoption of a solely Black persona, that he has either lost the capacity to be outraged by Vick’s activities or has restrained any such outrage in favor of racial solidarity and an acceptance of all of the Blacks’ “culture,” including those that normal people find intolerable.

This degraded ethical base might make it far easier for Obama to sympathize with Vick, irrespective of the atrocities the vermin committed. With Blacks and Hispanics making up only approximately 25% of the US population but 60% of the convicted felons, this would almost make sense from a purely pragmatic, racialist viewpoint.

Black Is Bloc

By and large – one of my wives being an exception – Blacks rallied behind Sick Vick from the very beginning and have been unwavering in both their support and their use of him to further their racialist agenda. President Obama’s open support of Vick might be nothing but another cynical ploy to cement the support of the Blacks in his upcoming 2012 election, an election that he is unlikely to win even with their support and foredoomed to loose without it.

If this is the case, it’s not too shabby of a political ploy. The Blacks will eat it up and be a little more likely to turn out to vote for him and the Liberals will, despite how they might feel about Vick, will see it as, or twist it into, an tacit attack on the American judicial system and, therefor, a sign that they should continue to support Obama.

~*~

Irrespective of whether Obama has become enamored of his Black Identity enough to not to be bothered by Sick Vick’s depravity or has become cynical enough to disregard it in order to use the Blacks racial solidarity for his own devices, or some combination of both, his supporting Vick and praising Lurie for making use of Vick’s skills to enhance the Eagles’ bottom line was a disgusting and grossly reprehensible act.

The only true and worthwhile question is what form should America’s retribution take. That is a difficult question since it inherently deals with how far the chain of culpability stretches and what each link in that chain deserves as punishment.

The immediate, pertinent, and critical question before Americans is whether this desire of the Democrats is stupid, brave, or evil.

As reported by the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Frustrated by regular filibusters and other procedural blockades, Senate Democrats are urging their leadership to negotiate with Republicans to change the rules that govern how the Senate does business.

The Democrats would leave intact the ability of the minority party to filibuster legislation and nominations, meaning that in most cases it would still take 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. But they want to require senators to be on the floor if they intend to try to debate a bill to death and would make other changes to streamline the Senate’s operations, including ending the practice of secret “holds” by a single senator on legislation or nominees.

Republicans are likely to resist, and should no compromise be found, some Democrats are prepared to propose their own package of rules changes on the first day of the session.

This is certainly both interesting and ironic. It’s interesting because the premise that partisanship and use / misuse of Senate has reached the point that it often interferes with the Senate getting anything accomplished and changing the procedures in some fashion may well be needed. It’s ironic because this behavior started with a Democrat Senate minority under President Bush.

But interest and irony don’t address whether the Democrats desires are based upon is stupidity, bravery, or evil.

Stupid?

That the Senate Dems are being childish, shortsighted,  and stupid is certainly the easiest answer. Frankly, when dealing with any grouping of people it is almost always wiser to attribute to stupidity what one might otherwise attribute to some other motivation.

There are 23 Senate Democrats 2 Independents who consistently caucus with them up for reelection in 2012 and only 8 Republicans. Simple math combined with the current political climate indicates that the Republicans will win the Senate majority in the 2012 elections. Hence, anything they do to weaken the minority party will certainly come back to haunt them in the near future.

Brave?

There’s also the chance, albeit a slim one, that the Senate Democrats are being brave and putting the needs of the nation before their personal desires. With the odds on bet being that they’ll shortly be the minority party in the Senate it could be an act of courage and statesmanship to curtail what power they will soon be limited to.

It is most certainly a surety that something needs to be done to modify Senate procedures. They’ve reached the point where it is almost impossible to get anything accomplished without a level of “sausage making” that is nothing but legally excused corruption and bribery. If the Democrats in the Senate are actually honest in their goals, this is a rare act of statesmanship, patriotism, and courage.

Evil?

Of course this attempt to change Senate procedures could just be another example of the Democrats’ self-centeredness and evil. If the Democrats are following President Obama’s twisted model of bipartisanship then their claims about seeking to reach out to the Republicans in order to craft sensible changes to the Senate procedures is just a sham.

This could all just be a show played out to trick the American people into thinking that the GOP is nothing more than needlessly obstructive. These Democrats could easily be planning on offering up an unacceptable set of changes, forcing the Republican to block them, and then claiming that those Senate Republicans just want to shutdown the government.

Since some of the Democrats are openly speaking of trying to invoke the untested-to-date “constitutional option” on the opening day of the next Senate session, self-centeredness and evil as motivation for their actions has some evidence to support it.

~*~

I’d truly like to believe that the Senate Democrats are showing a rare occurrence of bravery and statesmanship; I’m more than willing to believe and settle for their actions are based upon shortsightedness and stupidity; history, however, indicates that self-centeredness and outright evil has a very good chance of being what is behind the Democrats’ desire to change the Senate procedures.

It is, however, far too early to make a judgment upon this matter. The American people must watch and wait until we have enough information to make the decision as whether the Senate Democrats are being stupid, brave, or evil.

The Liberals deride their enemies, by and large, as being ignorant and easily mislead; Conservative, by and large, claim that their enemies are evil.

I find it a very interesting dichotomy of outlooks.

The reasons and motives that Liberals and Conservatives in America ascribe to each others’ actions is, so far as I can see, nothing but a “high-proof” distillation of their respective worldviews.

The Liberals

In most cases the Liberals seem to believe that little or nothing that anyone could do that they consider as anti-social or contrary to their Liberal values is that person’s fault because they don’t seem to believe that it was a matter of choice.

When Liberals encounter someone who behaves or believes is manner that they find wrong the Liberals tend not to blame the person in question. They tend to shift the blame to society as a whole. It’s not the person’s fault; they’re not fully accountable for their behavior or actions because they weren’t properly educated, weren’t provided with successful results, and other such things.

The Conservatives

In most cases the Conservative seem to believe that nearly anything or everything that anyone could do that they consider as anti-social or contrary to their Conservative values is that person’s fault because they don’t seem to believe that it was anything other than a matter of choice.

When Conservatives encounter someone who behaves or believes is manner that they find wrong they tend to believe that the person has willfully chosen to be like that. Society and circumstance are rarely blamed due to the Conservatives’ belief that people of good character can and will overcome any obstacles put in their paths.

~*~

In the course of political discourse in America the rhetoric of these two views devolve into condescension from the Liberals and vitriol from Conservatives.

The Liberals deride the Conservatives as ignorant, stupid, or mentally damaged and seek to re-educate them into Liberal views, and the Conservatives deride the Liberals as evil people who have chosen to believe and act as they do and who are likely not amenable to conversion.

Such will likely continue until one side or the other is destroyed and consigned to history because the forms these arguments take is nothing but a distillation of the core beliefs of the two sides.

The question arise though – how do we judge another’s intent and goals? What scales do you use to derive our measurements? Do we weigh the actions of others on our own scales of malice, or do we weigh them on what we can perceive of their scales of malice?

For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of this malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it.

– Gandalf
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 203

It a common thought that we judge others by own desires and from solely within our own framework of goals and perceptions – or at least it’s a common rebuttal in many arguments. Somehow I doubt this assertion is anywhere near universal in its accuracy.

I think it is important for people to determine by which and whose scales they judge the actions and malice of others though.

Our Scales:

If we are judging the actions of others based upon what we would do in a similar circumstance, then our judgment is bound to be very subjective. It also would, at that point, say as much or more about ourselves as it does about the object of our judgment.

It would also be a flawed basis for judgment in many cases. People are not all the same and – beyond the primal needs – do not necessarily have similar motivations. By judging others only by own goals we leave ourselves open to being outmaneuvered by our enemies, as the quoted passage above asserts.

Still, it’s a consistent framework for judgment and one that can be rapidly brought to bear on a situation. Therefor it is not wholly lacking in merit – if one accepts its limitations and plans accordingly.

Their Scales:

If we are judging the actions others based upon their own goals and capabilities, then our judgment is not going to be subjective in the same manner as if we judged based on what we would do in the same or similar circumstances. The subjectivity would be more a case of targeting the assessment to the situation and individuals or groups involved.

It would also be a basis of judgment that has to be predicated on either prior knowledge of the individuals or groups involved or a high degree of empathy. Lacking a sufficient amount of either would render judgment based upon their intent, goals, capabilities flawed to the point of uselessness.

Still, it has the capacity for greater accuracy than basing one’s judgment on ones’ own intent, goals, capabilities. Therefor it is not wholly lacking in merit – if one accepts its limitations and plans accordingly.

It is certainly beyond me to determine which framework of judgment is better in the long run; I’m not even sure if either one is better than the other in an overall manner. Both scales of malice, internal and external, have the strengths and weaknesses.

It is not beyond my capabilities though to conclude that it is best to know, or at least consider, by which one – or at what level of combination – one is assessing the ramifications and intent of others’ actions in any given situation.

Mental Illness in America II

December 14, 2007 by nightbird16

Just a week ago, Richard Dawkins, a distraught and mentally ill teenager in Colorado, shot eight shoppers. Sunday morning, another young mentally disturbed young man, Matthew Murrey’, shot five members of a missionary training center and church, also in Colorado. Although a few years older than Richard, Matthew exhibited the same symptoms of an isolated, depressed and failure-plagued young person: relationship problems with parental figures, isolated from possible friends his own age, feeling a failure and abused, and at last hearing voices in his mind, he struck out at a christian community he felt had rejected and let him down.

His parents chose to take him out of the public school to home school him in a strict Christian fashion, which he resented because it deprived him of opportunities to make friends. He felt unable to “live up to the strict behaviorial standards set for him by his parents and fundamentalist theology and that plunged him into a deep and suicidal depression. His parents put him on medication to control the depression, but that apparently didn’t help. He sought aid from church and missionaries, and they too failed to heal his panic and suffering.

Finally, he armed himself with an assault rifle, handguns and 1000 rounds of ammunition and went to take revenge on a Christian community which he could not join and could not escape.

Guns and mental illness is a fatal combination, but parents and church must share responsibility for what happened. Without support and effective counseling, many teens fall by the wayside in America. And the story looks dreadfully similar: isolation, failure, unrelenting pressure and control leads to tragedy again and again. When something goes wrong, parents blame “the wrong crowd.” The church blames evil values. Politicians blame evil children.

I blame a sick society that devours its own children.

Yes, Nightbird16, America suffers from a sick society. That sickness is manifest in the people that put on their oh-so-comfortable blinders and claim any sort of evil or selfishness as an illness. Evil exists! Selfishness, Evil’s bastard spawn exists! They don’t magically go away because people mislabel them as some sort of illness, or blame them on society.

Dawkins and Murrey were a pair of selfish, self-centered losers who wanted to die in a blaze of fame and supposed “glory” – nothing more. They weren’t mentally ill; they were evil, selfish and useless. Do their parents share the blame for that? Yes, they raised a pair of misborn freaks who turned to evil. Does society share them for that? Only insofar as it doesn’t have an effective means of culling such human trash before they can harm others.

It’s is decades past time for America to start forcing people to be responsible for their own choices and their own actions. It is decades past time to stop excusing the criminal and evil behavior of individuals because we’re too cowardly to look evil in the face and pull the trigger.

I blame it on a sick society who’s too afraid to face evil.