"The Middle" TV Show

I absolutely love this TV show called "The Middle."  It features Patricia Heaton as the mom.  Yes, that is the same lady who played the mom on "Everybody Loves Raymond."  But do not make the elementary mistake of thinking that she is simply rehashing the same role.

Her role here as "Frankie Heck" is much more subtle, has more layers and complexities to her character.  I honestly do not see her role here as the typical suburban housewife trope.

Delivery, setup, timing, and execution is spot-on perfect.
subtle, nuanced, excellently carried out.
It is painfully funny, well-written, and relatable.

This show is not gimmicky with any irritating, trying-too-hard gods-out-of machines the way that other show "Modern Family" is.  Good lord, rolling my eyes in exasperation, MF is an irritating show.  The fact that it gets so much dang media praise and adulation is a testament to the fact that people bend over ass-backwards to try to placate the gay people and be politically correct.

"The Middle" has solid characters written who are interesting and realistic.  The writing is as in-depth, insightful, and unexpected as the first season of "Community."

See, what I really like about them is that they _know__ they are middle of the road.  They're not sitting there demanding social promotion, demanding constant praise and validation for a job mediocrely-done, demanding that their mediocrity be celebrated as extraordinary.  not falsely inflating self-esteem.

they are middle.  they know it, we know it, onlookers know it, and they are not lying to themselves about it.  They acknowledge it honestly and openly.

Teenagers, Pregnancy, and Birth Control

I am completely one hundred percent in favor of teenagers using birth control.  My primary reasons for thinking this are the following:

I do not want to see even more unplanned pregnancies or unwanted babies cropping up.  It is a drain on society's finances, it is a drain on society's sanity, and it is also quite a drain on those teenagers that get pregnant or that get others pregnant.  They are screwing up their lives even further beyond damaged emotional health, STDs, and physical scars.

If liberals were completely honest with themselves, if they were to stop and think and really examine their motivations for this, they would realize that they are in fact doing the exact same thing.  They are also acknowledging, however grudgingly, the fact that teenagers are not capable of being good parents.

Liberals also acknowledge the fact that teenagers do not possess the mental acuity, nor the mental rigor to be good judges of things.  They do not have self-discipline, self-control, self-respect.  They do not have the ability to stop and think, "Hey wait a minute, how am I ever going to be a parent if we do get pregnant?"  They are not capable of consciously controlling their actions, and they are not capable of making good decisions.  They are primitive, less-evolved living creatures that are not in control of their actions.  They are not able to stop themselves from doing something that could have very regrettable consequences.

The best thing we can do for them is take the decision out of their hands and force them to use birth control.

Teenagers do not have the personal growth, psychological maturity, foresight, planning skills, or organization skills to be good parents.  They do not have the selfless love, the endless enormous copious amounts of patience, the sums of intelligence, the self-actualization skills to be a good parent.  They do not have the self-awareness of their own personalities so that they have a good understanding of their own patience levels, their temper, their anger thresholds, the ability not to panic in emergency situations.

But they are also too stupid to know how stupid they are.  What they do have is too much stupidity to be able to realize, "Hey, I don't want to risk making a baby.  Maybe I should not have sex."  They lack the psychological maturity to handle being parents.  But simultaneously they sure as hell DON'T lack sex drive.  Hormones, libido, that sort of thing.

So basically the consensus is that teenagers are somewhat primitive, a bit unevolved.  They lack critical thinking skills.  Which is really pathetic because this is not that difficult; it's not critical thinking at all.  Sex=babies.  I don't want babies, therefore I should not have sex.

They succumb to their primitive urges right on cue.  But then they lack the capacity to follow though and handle the consequences of those urges.  They do not possess the responsibility required to be parents.

So we as a society are left to make the decision for them.  We have decided to allow them to have sex, after all, it's only their bodies' urges.  But they should not be allowed to bear children.

And if liberals actually analyzed the masked, hidden, profound reasons for being in favor of birth control for teens, they would realize that they agree with me.  If they stopped to take the time to examine their motivations, it would dawn on them that they think the exact same thing I do.

Yes, you can be judgmental.  I sure as hell am.  You know the reason that I am all for birth control for teenagers?  My real reason is condescending, snide judgment, sneering and absolute:  I don't expect much from these people.

My expectations of them and of what they might achieve in life are pathetically low.  What is expected of them is sagging, flaccid, sad, ludicrous.  I don't give them a whole lot of credit, because they have done nothing to earn it.

We see that they have no morals, no self-respect, no self-control, no self-restraint.  They have no capability of higher thinking, no evolved demonstration of emotions, no sentience, no good judgment.  They have no being able to think through and consider what the consequences of their actions might be, no self-awareness of the sort that evolved free-thinking creatures of a higher order should have.

Just like pets.  Just as cats and dogs are incapable of thinking ahead to probable consequences of their actions, weighing the pros and cons of their decisions, and choosing wisely based on what the most likely outcome is, so too are teenagers incapable.

Push birth control.  Keep pushing the birth control.

I am also doing this to save those teenager-produced babies from what would be their own horrible (most likely) existence.  Mostly I am doing this because I want to save those poor little beings that otherwise would be forced and thrust into a horrible, abusive, heartbreaking, unthinkable existence.  I am doing the most merciful thing of all -- I am preventing them from existing.

Mostly this is because I don't want these teenager people foisting yet another generation of failures and losers onto society.  I don't want to have to shoulder the burden medically, financially, insurance-wise, state education funds-wise, federal education funds-wise, juvenile delinquent system-wise, criminal justice-system wise.  Nip it in the bud.

Why shouldn't teenagers get pregnant?  Because they are not capable of being parents.  They are nowhere near the psychological maturity required for the enormous responsibility that is raising another human being.

Then why don't they just not have sex?  Because they have physical urges, AND at the same time they lack the mental capacity to overcome these urges and choose not to have sex.

Therefore, to try to make the best of a bad situation, the least we can do is make them use birth control.  At least this way, if they want to go and spread diseases and heartbreak, they at least would not be able to drag another innocent being into the mess.

The Most Merciful Thing of All

This is something that has been circulating the blogs as of late.  This is the question of, should childbirth be government-mandated?  Or to put it another way, should people have to obtain permission from the government to have children?

Answer:  Yes.

I care so much about your kids that I want to prevent them from existing.  I want to prevent them from being subject to a life of poverty, crime, drugs, child molesting, juvenile pregnancy, child abuse.  I want to protect them from meeting that fate.

It's -- sigh, you don't even need to wade into any philosophical waters.  The obvious practical real-world examples trump any philosophical argument.  There are consequences of not implementing this policy, which we witness on a daily basis with our own eyes and ears.

Stipulations would include the following:
•Any violent criminal history is an automatic no.  No exceptions.
•Anyone under age 21 is an automatic no.  But they may reapply when they achieve this stipulation.
•People who are not married are an automatic no.  But they may reapply when they achieve this stipulation.
•Anyone currently without a high school diploma or GED is an automatic no.  But they may reapply when they achieve this stipulation.
•Both the wife and the husband have to be present for the interview, and both must be active throughout the entire process.  No exceptions.

If an extreme liberal wanders by, they will start foaming at the mouth that I dared utter a solution that is just so... realistic and practical.  They will also probably be chomping at the bit in a frenzy, in this opportunity to accuse me of being "racist."

Really?  So it is racist to have standards?  You do realize that nowhere in these provisions does it say that the couple must be non-black?  If a certain demographic or person feels that this discriminates against them, then this is more of a commentary on that demographic or person than on the standards.
   
Can anyone out there honestly put forth a rebuttal about why this would be construed as a bad idea?  Supply us with any logical supportive debate.  Practice some critical thinking -- give some thought to the future of the nation; some thought to the future of the economy;  some thought to primary and secondary school education; some thought to health care funding.

Please do not attempt to counter-argue at me with some story about how you know a girl that had a baby at age sixteen and despite this she managed to turn her life around and get a waitressing job, go to community college, get a two-year nursing certificate, and managed to make a life for her and her baby.  And yes, I can say this without needing to meet any of you -- it is always a "her" and "her baby."  The baby daddy is usually out of the picture.

I am not asking for a requisite survivor story about someone who charged on "despite" having a baby while still legally a juvenile.  That is not answering my question.  My question is that I challenge anyone to provide a logical, reason-based argument as to why it is a good idea for any seventeen-year-old or even eighteen-year-old to become a parent.

Please don't bother trying to hide behind some knee-jerk accusation that this would be practicing eugenics.  I can already predict the HH Goddard-like accusations rolling in.

Implementing ideals of social intelligence, personal responsibility, social responsibility, and maturity -- this is not eugenics.  This is smart public policy and planning for the future.
--

I can predict that a lot of people will come back with, "But it's a human right to reproduce!"  Yes, and just like all human rights, this one will be taken away if you violate the human rights of another human being.  You murder someone, you can't have kids.  You sell drugs, you can't have kids.

These legal proposals
This is not as far-fetched as one might think.  This is no different from legal restrictions that are placed on criminals currently.

This is exactly the same conditional restrictions placed on people in other societal regards.  They are not allowed to vote, they are not allowed to have driver's licenses.  Usually the state will issue a state-issued identification card.  They have to be registered se_ offenders.  Many places of employment will turn someone down if they have a violent crime in their legal record

-------
A couple that presents themselves as wanting to have a child would have to go through a rigorous involved interview process.  This would include criminal background check, employment history check, educational background check, drug abuse history.

Just FYI of a small bit of “liberal values” -- medical history is something that would not be taken into any consideration whatsoever.  Diabetes, asthma, family history of cancer, family history of heart disease -- none of that would have any weight on the decision whatsoever.  There is no evidence that a state of increased physical medical maladies contributes to faulty detrimental child-rearing.

In addition, we're not trying to turn this into a eugenics camp.  We are trying to ensure reshponsible parenting that produces normal, psychologically healthy children that can turn into normal, productive members of society.

A credit history -- hmm.  That is one that I am deliberating on.  I don't want this to turn into some sort of "only rich people can have children."  US department of health and human services has statistics that show that middle-class families are just as capable of raising healthy, productive children as rich families.  However, an overview of a person's credit history does give a good indication of how responsible a person is (with managing money, personal responsibilities, rent, employment opportunities).

Actually, simply the fact that a couple would be applying to have a child is enough reason to allow them to have a child.  The fact that they truly want a child would carry water in their favor.       is plenty evidence that they truly want a child.

People that would not bother to apply for a child would not be allowed.  Whether you want to admit it or not, that helps everyone.  They don't want a child anyway, and we would not have to let them have one.  No teenagers, or in worst-case scenarios, no drug dealers, drug addicts, prostitutes, strippers, armed robbers, serial rapists, or other violent types would be allowed to have children.

An interview requirement is not a far-fetched proposal at all.  Currently the branches of the government do all of the following whether at local, state, or federal levels.
•We interview people for jobs.  We have to make sure they have the necessary skills, background, and qualifications.
•We interview people to see if they are competent to serve in jury duty.  And we interview people to see if they are competent to stand trial.  We discern whether they possess an even temperament and good judgment.
•We interview people to allow them to become immigrants or citizens of this country.  If we can interview and then apply judgment on whether or not to let people stay in this country legally, then we can certainly interview and apply judgment to allow people to reproduce.  And that is on EVERYBODY in this country -- whether they were born here or not.
•We interview couples if one spouse is applying for immigration through the other spouse who is immigrant or citizen.

If some dumbass still tries to come back at us with the argument of, “The government should not be allowed to judge who should become a parent and who should not."

My response is, why the hell not?  *Someone* has to have the judgment.  Since tens of millions of people have so obviously demonstrated that they do not have the capability for good judgment on their own, they have summarily asked that the decision be taken out of their hands.

And look, I'm joking on this next point, but only partly.  Any applicants for parenthood should be made to hand-write a sentence of the Board’s choosing.  This would be a grammatically complete sentence, and the applicants would be evaluated on proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

This sentence would include words that are frequently abbreviated for convenience in texting, emails, YouTube comments, and the ilk.  This would include homonym words that are often confused with each other in written communication.  Common culprits include the word "you're," which too many dumbasses write as "your.”

Some leeway could be given to couples for whom English is a second language.  This means that they are fluent and proficient in another entire different language, and English is a second language for them.  That puts them roughly at two hundred percent language capability of the average American.  However, there is no excuse for poor command of the English language for someone that was born and brought up in this country.

I should point out that that this [[[[request behest ]]]]] also is not unusual.  When applicants are interviewed for naturalized citizenship into this country, they are made to write down a sentence, presumably to check for correct spelling, punctuation, and general knowledge of the English language.  I had to do that myself to become a naturalized citizen.  And although you might not be able to discern this from the general tone of my essay, I really didn’t mind doing it.

In defense of things that are great and wonderful that made one teeny tiny little mistake and now everybody thinks that thing is horrible

Very good people can just be very good; they don't have to be pristine angelic lily white.

Tearing down historical figures and bastions of hope and goodness is nothing new.  But this is reaching a new historical low.

•Red Cross putting some money towards phones rather than every last frickin dime towards stored blood
This is the Red Cross, for Christ's sake.  Have they not earned our trust and respect enough?

Uh, okay, so, do they plan on getting more blood, or is the blood that is currently in their stores meant to last for the rest of eternity?  What’s that, they plan on getting more blood?  Then they need phones.

Oh for god's sakes, grow the hell up.  Are you seriously laboring under some myth that good people have to be angelic babydoll pristine perfect flawless?

Anybody over age twenty who is being all shocked/disheartened/depressed/etc. that the Red Cross is allotting money towards phones or upkeep of their offices, rather than every last freakin shiny nickel going towards blood and blood alone -- grow the hell up.  Okay, fine, I'll be charitable -- anyone over age twenty-five.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  When you establish an organization that freakin gives blood for a living _and_ also never ever ever besties forever and ever allocates money towards maintaining offices in functional condition -- only then can you say that what they did is bayad.

Guess what -- they need phones.  Most likely so that they can take calls from more people who want to donate blood and stuff.  Geez, get the hell over it.

•Obama smoking
Well, what are we going to tell the little people?  (Oops, I meant children, not midgets.)  How about we tell the kids that if you come from an impoverished background, but still manage to retain all of your dignity, demand much more from yourself, educate yourself, keep yourself up-to-date on current events around the world, become a renowned respected university professor,

...and become the leader of the goddamn free world,
... Then guess what -- you get to light up once in a while.

Ms. Michelle, Mrs. First Lady, if you are reading this -- okay, first of all, I love you.  I am not engaging hyperbole at the moment.  I love you.  You are wonderful and smart and well-read and intelligent and educated, you have a PhD from ___ , do you not?  And informed and a snappy dresser.  So, yes.  I am extremely fond of you.

And I beseech you, I am begging you ___ ((pleading with my hands clasped together in a steeple in front of my face))), please let your husband light up once in a while.

Now, I myself do not condone smoking.  I have never smoked a cigarette in my life and I do not plan to, and I think Big Tobacco is evil, just like most people do.

However, the man has the hardest job in the world.  There I go again not engaging hyperbole -- he quite literally has the hardest job in the world, which a lot of people who have a problem with his smoking don’t seem to understand.  He needs some sort of relief, some sort of flaw that keeps him sane.

Dare I say, Mrs. Michelle, you have the second hardest job in the world, if not equally as demanding and difficult as his job.  You have to be his rock and emotional support.  I am absolutely not endorsing you taking up smoking; I am making an observation, that is all.

How many people out there agree with me, that perhaps the President should be allowed to smoke just once in a while?  Can I see a show of hands please?  That would be the majority -- there you go, Mr. President, you have gotten the green light from the American people.

If you don’t want him smoking around the girls, Mrs. Michelle, which I completely understand, then make him go out to the back porch and smoke.  But please do let him smoke, just once in a while.

Reading back over this, I realize it might sound like I am being sarcastic and jackhole-ish, but I assure you I am not.

•Michael Phelps being caught with a bong
Oh, come on.  The kid is a freakin Olympic athlete, for god’s sake.  He has trained for how many years, he has been focused, he set a clear goal for himself and worked at moving towards it ___.

To the people protesting this and saying, "oh I don’t want my kid to see that and think it’s okay to smoke marijuana..."  Well, I’m sorry *your* kid is a whiny gutless coward that has not done anything notable with his/her life, and you don’t want your kid to become even more of a loser than he/she already is.  And I agree with you -- your slacker mediocre kid who barely completed "some wishy-washy liberal arts degree" (colfer 215) and partied his/her way through high school and college, does not have the right to light up.

Michael Phelps, on the other hand, is not your lazy, privileged, spoiled, whiny, middle-class white kid.  He has won one, two, three ... count em, seven Olympic gold medals.  I think he has more than earned the privilege to kick back and relax a bit.

Gamers- Nope, gamers existed before you

Why does the word "gamer" now mean "people that play video games?"  When did this cultural change in definition occur?

The noun "gamer" used to mean "gambler," or "a person that engages in the wagering arts."  The present participle tense of the verb, "gaming," used to mean "gambling."  These were the formal versions of the concepts, meant to be used in polite company

I am not sure why recently video game emos simply took the word "game," a noun which they mean to refer to the actual video game, and decided to shame the English language.  They dropped the "-e" and added that present participle suffix "-ing," to create a bastardization that I hope does not ever make it into the Oxford English dictionary.  It reminds me of the time that Calvin from "Calvin and Hobbes" said he like to "verb" words.

Anarchy revised and reloaded

"Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people."  I read this somewhere on the internet.  It is a perfect, succinct summary of exactly the pseudo-intellectual philosobabble that is libertarianism.

"Let the poor people be poor together and f-- themselves into drugs and prots, as long as _I_ get to have all the money."  That is what libertarianism entails.  It is the modern-day equivalent of "Let them eat cake."  Marie Antoinette had said that in a flippant response to, "The poor people cannot afford bread."

I think the problem is that any BS thrown out into the ether is filed under the umbrella category of "intellectualism."

Unfortunately, that word is used too broadly, including being used incorrectly as in the wrong definition.  Intellectualism, by definition, has to have a lot of thought put into it.  Libertarians have not really thought through their hypothetical situations.

Ignorant dumbasses fortunate enough to be born into white upper-middle-class families.

prsrss and drug dealing are symptoms of a failing society.  a society that has failed to provide jobs, adequate wages, and educational opportunities to everyone.

oh, yeah sure.  people choose to sell drugs and prso, just like how people choose to be homeless.  Or how people choose not to be able to afford a college education.  or how people choose to have to drop out of grade school and start working labor jobs to support their families.  Or how people choose not to be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables and instead buy cheap junk food.

Just like how teachers choose to be paid excruciatingly low wages, right?

We really need to get away from the idea that anything that happens is purely by choice and under our control and that luck or misfortune has nothing to do with it.

We need a paradigm shift *away* from the far-too-widespread notion that America is still the land of opportunity and freedom.  Thirty years ago, yes America was the land of freedom.  That was still true back then.  Having choices, having the realistic ability to exercise options, did exist back in the day.  Social mobility was possible.  But not any longer.  This is not the case today.

The twin [[diseases, afflictions]]] of being fiscally conservative yet socially liberal is the most selfish, irresponsible, destructive-to-society combination imaginable.  If you expect people to be able to make conscious decisions to do the right thing, to do what is healthy and beneficial for themselves, and yet *at the same time* you do *not* leave open the opportunities -- as well as the financial support -- for them to realistically pursue those options.  This is ludicrously, phenomenally ignorant of the realities facing Americans today.

Related story:  As a society, we really need a paradigm shift away from the unfortunately widespread notion that just because something happens, this automatically means all parties consented to it.  Just because porst happens, does not automatically mean it is consensual.  What those women really need is a shelter that they can go to, counseling, and training and certification for some sort of respectable job.

The proposal put forth by libertarians is pure adolescent fantasy.  It equates to anarchy, to nihilism.  It is abject deterioration of society.  Their prevalent stance can be summed up thusly:  let the poor people f-- themselves into drugs and prostitution, as long as I get to keep all money ever.

Libertarianism assumes that if rich people keep skimming off the middle class, the economy will still continue to work just fine.  This in spite of the obvious fact that the economy is ingrained into the social aspect of a people.

"Libertarians" say that any activity that takes place between consenting adults__
And what, you think this activity sprang up completely out of the blue?  You think there was no chain of occurrence leading up to that point?  I suppose that you also opine that poverty, gang violence, nonexistent educational or career opportunities, dwindling social aid, all the things that lead someone into drugs or prostitution -- these things are all simply consenting adults being consenting adults as well.

Nothing exists in a vacuum.  You would do well to remember that alcohol is already legal and has been for ___ years.  Yes, during prohibition, consumption increased.  However, legalizing it has not cut down on alcohol-related traffic deaths, alcohol-related sexual assault, drunken domestic violence.  All these things can be and are done by adults buying it and consuming it legally, not just by minors that purchase alcohol with fake IDs.

Some other examples:  a woman who is trapped in a domestic violence relationship -- well, she is still there, so she must be okay with it, right?  Wrong.  Victimization.  A kid is being picked on by bullies at school.  Well, the bullying continues, so he must be okay with it, right?

Another analogy:  just because Dr. Jack Kevorkian's patients _did_ finally succumb to assisted suicide, that must mean they fully understood what was happening, and they consented to it, right?

Eh, whatevs.  Libertarianism is just another example of middle-class white boys trying to be badass.  Same as how middle-class whites love "The Sopranos," "Dexter," and movies like "The Godfather."  MCWs like those shows because they like to fantasize that they, too, can rise up in force and defend themselves against black and/or Latino gangs, drug dealers, and the ilk.

I've talked about this trend before.  Because they do not have any monetary or political power like rich white people, and yet at the same time they are not at the point of having nothing to lose like ghetto poor people, MCWs do not have any recourse.  Therefore they like to live vicariously through their entertainment choices.  This includes TV shows, movies, video games.  I suppose it was inevitable that this wanting-to-be-badass would eventually manifest as a sociopolitical ideology.  What's the matter, cupcake, you're not getting enough tail?

Why Libertarians Are Assholes

Same with libertarians, e.g., andrew sullivan, sam harris, others of which I can't think of their names right now.

Libertarians worry me because they labor under the false assumption that anything that happens in this universe absolutely surely must have been between consenting parties or else it would not happen, right?  Let us extend that to logical conclusions and see what we come up with.  Maybe a hiring manager doesn't feel like hiring a black person even though said person is the best qualified candidate, ehh, just because.  Maybe a paramedic decides he does not feel like saving someone's life?  Maybe a cop decides he does not feel like pursuing a criminal?

Libertarians are mostly selfish egotistical aholes.  They want that THEY should be allowed to have all the privileges, all the second chances in the world, all the money to fall back on, to be able to dust themselves off and try again, to be able to come rescue them up out of their self-inflicted dumbassery hijinks -- but no one else should be allowed.

They want privileges, comfort, back-up money, emergency funds, something to fall back on so that when they get in a medical emergency they don't go broke and homeless -- but no one else in the country should be allowed to have this.  They should be allowed to have a rainy day fund -- but no one else should be allowed to have one.  they should be allowed to have unearned income be sitting and ready to bail them out of their stupid decision-making any time their little heart's desire, any time it strikes their fancy -- but no one else should be allowed to have it.

This is a fiscal concept a lot of people are unaware of.  Tax-wise and legally, unearned income is NOTTT the same thing as earned income as in actual salary from your job that you work at, clocked in hours that you put in every week, two weeks, or whatever your employer's pay period.  Get to have money just sitting there ready in waiting to bail them out yet again -- but no one else should be allowed to have it.

They get to toss aside human beings and not pay average employees and workers what they are truly worth.  They get to shortchange the frontline floor workers, screw them over, and not pay them what their jobs really truly demand of them on the job itself.  Nor the amount of education and training that was required in pathos extrinsically before even being considered for the job.  The employees' qualifications.

"I don't give a flying shyt whether honest hard-working employees get paid enough.  I don't care if people have morals and a sense of dignity and therefore they purposely sought out decent jobs that require skill and that aren't nasty immoral contributing to social decay.  If they want money so badly, they should just quit their jobs as teachers, nurses, police officers, manual laborers.  Go sell your bodies, go sell drugs, I really don't give a fat rat's shyt.  All I care about is that I get to keep all the money."

They get to have money, they get to have drugs, they get to have cheap sx, as in paid for and nothing else, they get to have abortions.  And in addition to all that, they should get to have money to come rescue them out of it when they screw up.

But no one else should get to have any privileges whatsoever.  If someone not from your socioeconomic class screws up, oh well.  If someone not from your spoiled middle class mummy and daddy overdrawn bank account tens of thousands of dollars in debt to pay for your liberal arts degree, screws up, oh well.  If someone is not from your spoiled ivory tower, "stupid sons of rich men," is not born into the social status but most likely with no intelligence or business-management skills whatsoever, oh well.  If someone is poor because their full-time job does not pay enough, oh well.  What the hell do you care?

Why Atheists are Assholes -- A Continuing Study

I have noticed a disturbing trend as of late.  Atheists are just as incessant in their assholery as religious fundamentalist zealots, although they attest different reasons to this assholery from those of the religious freaks.  One thing that both groups have in common is that they have their various strawmen to which they hitch their personal creeds.

At the heart of all this is the plain fact that atheists are not necessarily logical and scientific.  They are simply looking for other BS excuses to exact torture and abuse against people that they deem inferior, such as women and colored folk.

Atheists are harboring latent loosely-suppressed criminal tendencies, particularly hatred against women.  Atheists are apparently [[[__hiding,

They have their common litany with which they defend their depraved tendencies.  Atheism is based in logic and reasoning....  Atheists have arrived at this conclusion thru informed decisions and rational thinking...

Oh, bullshyte.  You don't like logic.  You hammer the same misogynistic bullshyte that religious fundamentalist zealots cum over.  At least religious extremists have the decency to acknowledge that the concepts they advocate and promote are not based on any logic or reasoning whatsoever.  They freely admit that these antiquated notions are handed down to them from ghosts in the sky and voices in their heads.

It’s just that atheists no longer have a beastly spectre to blame for their prejudgments and repetitive tropes.  So they have to turn to other sources.  "I know!  Let’s just call it science.  Considering the abysmal ignorance of science by the general public, they won’t know any better and can be easily fooled."

Now, to be sure, I do not want to trivialize the seriousness of the crimes against humanity that religious zealots perpetrate.

However, look at the court system.  Why is it that in a r--- trial, the victim of the crime is the one that is put on trial?  I thought the court system and atheists were supposed to be [[[_propenders__]]]] of logic and reasoning?
I'm not just gleaning this from TV shows.  I have read up on several different court trial transcripts.

Who thought of video games where they rack up points based on how many women they can r--- and murder?  Who thought up those complex mythology worlds where they again r--- women, buy and sell women like cattle, trade women like objects of currency?

Creepy, disgusting, useless nerds.  I am specifically talking about the sick nerds that use nerdy skills -- computer programming, writing code, building CG interfaces -- for the express purpose of living out fantasies of disemboweling women.  You know, those video games where they dismember women, and then repeatedly r-- each severed limb.  

(Nothing against useful nerds such as those that research particle physics or possible cures for cancer.  I am a nerd myself.  I fully appreciate the existence of normal nerds.)

Who thought up the concept of forcing children into prsks?  Who thought up kidnapping women in Russia from their homes and forcing them into___

Guess what, folks.  Religious types did not do any of that.  Non-religious types did.

Ohhhh yeeeeeaaaahhhh, atheists are sooooo totally respectful and benevolent towards women.  All evidence toootaallly points towards this.  They thump ideologies of treating women like interchangeable wh---s, chattel, material possessions.  Their opinion -- and do not forget that this is all opinion and conjecture anyway -- is termed "evolutionary biology."  And they have the gall to call this "science."

They produce and create movies with gory scenes of r--- and dismembering of women.  And they call this "creativity."

Geez, at least religious fundamentalist zealots do not labor under any pretense whatsoever that their psycho antics are based in logic.  At least religious zealots are honest.  They come right out and say, "Do what we tell you to do because our deity orders you to.  You are stupid and have no right to freedom of thought.  We order you to do what we say, infidels."

Atheists are almost worse than religious fundamentalists, for the reason that they try to assert their ideals are logical.  They have their entire fawning, sycophantic pseudo-intellectual audience convinced that their actions are rooted in "logic."

"Oh, but it's logic," you say.  "It's rooted in scientific and biochemical evidence," you say.

[[Regarding atheists and r----pp by evolution, as opposed to Christians and their r----ppp by marriage.  (And how god is a man, and man is created in god’s image, a husband takes his wife as property ;;;))

Yes, they have their boogeymen -- and you have yours.  You deflect responsibility away from yourself through various causes du jour, same as they do.

I say, you can assign whatever semantics you want.  You can call it biological factoids, you can call it chemical equilibrium, you can call  ___ , you can say that the Easter Bunny made you do it, you can attest it to schizophrenia, you can say the devil made you do it, you can call it an act of G-d, or perhaps in your case, an act of Alistair Crowley.  There is no difference.  It is still rape.  "Ohh but it's evolution, it's totally 'science.'  We're waayy better than the religious fundamentalist zealots nuts that say God lets males re-- women."

You may blame whatever bogeyman and straw men that you like.  But it does not matter to anyone that exists outside your pretty little head which imaginary friend you choose to shunt responsibility to, now does it?

Time Travel- 1700s Edition

I just realized something.  The world has in many ways reverted back in time approximately three hundred years.  We have a Tea Party- political protesters objecting to the government using normal hardworking citizens' taxpayer money to bail out multi-billion-dollar mega-corporations.

We have pirates at sea.  Like actual pirates, not the idiotic use of the word "piracy" to indicate people at home making copies of their friends' music albums.  There are actual Somali pirates wreaking havoc in the Atlantic, due west of the African continent.  Good times.

Atheist attitudes towards women

One reason that many women do not feel welcome in the atheist community is some atheists' various excuses du jour for justifying rape, pornography, and violence against women.  Truly, in many ways atheism is as misogynistic as the religious fundamentalist zealot extremism that it claims to be better than.

Anyone else remember the postulate from a while back that tried to assert that rape against women is justified by evolution? I won't even bother to list logic-based arguments against this, because it is such a sick, vile, cruel notion that a horrific crime is in any way justified. I can only come to the conclusion that proponents of this crap do not possess any capacity for empathy or compassion whatsoever.

There are notorious bottom-feeders all over internet message boards that insist that the only reason women have a problem with sadomasochism or other violent sexual practices is because of religion.  They conveniently blame antiquated notions of Puritanism, Christian oppression, ad nauseum.

They conveniently dismiss the fact that sex is a deeply personal, private issue.

They simply dismiss the fact that a woman, who is a human being, has 100 percent right to decide what happens to her own body, physically, sexually, medically. That is a human right. If she decides she does not want to do something, end of story. 
It is not open to negotiation, compromise, or discussion.

The woman to whom that body belongs has the final say in what she does with it. Everyone else out there, including atheists, would do well to remember that.

Christianity and feminism

Christianity is actually surprisingly pro-woman___

Think atheist morality is just as good as Christian morality?  Think again.

The more I read about how Christianity recommends people conduct their lives, the more I realize that they did this for the betterment of mankind.

The reason they started Christianity was actually so it would be a reliable guideline for social cues.

Marriage, so that men could not just have sex and then toss a pregnant woman out on the street.
This is exactly what the modern court system does nowadays.

Believe it or not, a lot of the social [[[constructs]]] dictates [[[suggested, commanded]]] by Christianity were pro-woman.

Christians were right all along

Remember how Christians were all worried that without the guiding force of God in people's lives, people would just be led astray?  Christians were stating that without the driving factor of an imposing moral authority figure, people would just drift and disintegrate into lost little ragamuffins that have no idea how to conduct their lives in an orderly fashion.

It turns out they were kind of right.  Atheists cannot handle it.  They cannot handle being responsible for their own decisions, for their own choices in life.  They are not capable of that much mental work or that much responsibility for themselves.

They cannot handle the idea that without a stern, austere, emotionally neutral authority figure, they only have their own wavering, fluctuating, faltering, wishy-washy, non-convicted moral compass to guide them.

they can't handle the fact that___
As Jane Eyre put it succinctly (but in a slightly different context), "left to myself, I abandoned myself."  That's why atheists are so miserable.  They have no sense of personal responsibly, no ability to trust themselves, no self-respect.

Suddenly now that they no longer believe in a vengeful ghost in the sky, this for some odd reason means that anything goes with regard to the human species.  No more civilization.  No more empathy, no more compassion, no more morals, no more treating people with respect.  But worse yet, no more treating oneself with respect.

Now they think this somehow renders moot five hundred thousand years of human progress.  Now all of a sudden they have cast off any emotional, moral, psychological growth and awareness.  Drugs?  Great.  Prostitution?  Great.  Now that there is no *external* motivator of forcing behavior into socially acceptable conduct, there is no need to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

I just realized this kind of reads like a goddamn "Onion" parody article.  Too bad it's all true.

**Atheism does lead to lack of morality.
Religion really does make people more moral.  Case in point:  religious people actually get married, i.e., make a committed, sustained, long-term commitment to each other.  They tend not to f--- around random people.  Especially not druggie, infested, rabies-ridden random sexual encounters in bathroom stalls at trashy cheap "clubs."  They tend to have lower rates of STDS, general viral infections, AIDS.  They tend to have better hygiene in general.

Atheists, on the other hand, do tend to do all of the above and worse.  Seriously.  There are numerous editorials that exist all over the internet that summarily say, "since I don't really have a god, and don't believe in heaven and/or hell, and therefore I will not go to hell if I act immoral, there is really no point in me acting morally."

I don't get it.  What is the possible connection between a big bullying fairy in the sky -- and having evolved, polite, caring human behavior?

Are atheists really that closed-minded?  Are their minds really not capable of any critical thinking?  Are they really not capable of making responsible decisions that benefit society, for the reason that these decisions benefit society?  Must a beastly spectre be constantly breathing down their necks and forcing them towards good choices?

Can they really not advance their brains beyond this?  They entertain the absurd thought process that only a monotheistic deity could possibly desire moral behavior.  And since they no longer have a monotheistic deity to which to supplicate, there is no need to aspire to moral behavior.

They are plagued/crippled with the exact same [[[ something that ultimately causes a downfall  ]]]] that unchaperoned teenagers are faced with.  Without rules imposed on them by an external authority figure, unsupervised teenagers do not know right from wrong.

They are incapable of making rational decisions.  They are incapable of morality, self-respect, or self-discipline.  Neuroscience has proven that this impulsive, irrational behavior is due to the state of underdevelopment of a teen's brain.  They do not possess the capability of long-term projection, planning for the future, weighing pros and cons of any type of behavior.  predicting the most likely outcomes of decisions.

People would be listless and lost and wandering.

Women's IQs And Motherhood

IQ and other indicators of higher evolution apply to both men and women.

If women don’t have higher IQs, then they will not be able to have lives that are genuinely successful, happy, n fulfilling. [[ poss e.g., they are not promiscuous, they are much more choosy n wise when choosing sexual partners, n they don’t have nearly as many.  They are more likely to choose useful college degrees; n they are better mothers, they have fewer children, and they are more devoted w time n energy into raising each child.

I think this is the big piece that is missing. — IQ indicators of women are in many ways the most important driving force for advancement and progress of the human race.

There is a seamlrss perfect link, a perfect glorois full-bodied flrshed-out perfect relation between women’s their ability to be good devoted mothers, and women’s iq. **perh this too could be a blazing mind-blowing epiph. this could be the fisrt time that I really truly discovered/ postulated this. that women’s iq is directly causality with their capability of being good mothers.

at end (should I bring up the opp evidence whichbis actually in fact indeed evidence for what I am saying?? wherein, women that breed like rats, are physically durable n sturdy n therefore that is why they produce large quantities of children? n that this is precisely the exact self-same reason whyyy they are not able to
notice how the cause n effect are effortlessly seamlessly grafted into one another. (You know I’m serious, as I never use the phrase ‘one another’ if I can help it.)  Is she a poor (subpar) parent, because she produced too many kids?  Or did she produce too many kids because she is low- IQ and never planned on being a devoted parent in the first place?

This is a thing that so many evo-psychologists always conveniently omit or skip over whenever discussing IQ.  Notice the glaring hollow cognitive dissonance here.  aha 2 things emerged. 1) they always insist that only physical indicators of health are indicators for evolution of woem. rahter than intelligence n emotional stability. 2) and due to this [[[__ damit cantt find words__]] how men have supposedly evolved, men choose partners for mating. prioritize only women’s physical hralth above all else, n to the detriment of all else. lartners rather than
.it is quite tidiculous that evo-psychs have really truly convinced themselves that wimne are going to seek moder-day-equivalent traist when choosing men.
yet simulteosuly they also think men are going to seek caveowmn traits in modern-day women.

This is why libertarians and atheists are assholes

Sadism in sex?  What the hell is this shit?!

I read a few -- sigh; for lack of a better term, we shall call them "opinion articles" defending this sick, violent crime.  This is the exact same abuse, torture, violence inflicted on women since the beginning of the human species.

Now it is simply dressed up, couched in some willfully elusive, purposely misleading language, repackaged in a whip and chain and dog collar, and sold to the public.  But upon applying some critical thinking, one will find that it is the same sickening mind games that r--ists have been forcing onto women since time eternity.

You see the type of vehement fervor with which they insist that the victims are fully consenting and agreeing one hundred percent.  This is sickening.  It is also baffling at first, until you begin to recognize patterns wherein this parallels the verbiage of r--sits.  Date r--ists also usually insist that they did nothing wrong.  They insist that the victim was fully willing and enthusiastic.

[[[[[[ You see the type of vehement fervor with which they insist that the victims are fully consenting, agreeing "adults."  refuted.  And as far as being considered adults, these are kids that merely had their 18th birthdays in recent days.  And this is the first experience being away from their parents for an extended length of time.]]]]]]

psychological warfare
It is also sickening psychological warfare.  They are masters of manipulation and [[[ defeating someone's self-preservation instincts.  Systematically, methodically breaking down a person's subconscious alarm bells.

They resort to accusing someone who does not want to participate in this gruesome psychological torture of being a prude, of being "not comfortable in their own skin," of being "not comfortable with their body," of being not "truly able to let go of religious shackles of their repressive upbringing,"

frighteningly similar rhetoric to that which is used by [[[
The proponents of this are manipulative psychopaths.  One sicko tried to use the argument, and this is a direct quote, "they should not be denied sesual fulfillment just because the need from that fulfillment originated from a bad place."

What the hell...??  That is so twisted and illogical I don't even know where to begin to refute that argument.  But I will try.  Erm, if it originates from a negative place and is fueled by that negative connotation, then it is probably not fulfillment.

The psychosocial, emotional responses in the females that are coerced into this -- are very similar to that which has been seen for years in r-- victims and victims of domestic violence.  A variation of this is Stockholm syndrome.

Often, r-- victims will also try to convince themselves that nothing is wrong.  They will avoid thinking about the trauma that happened to them.

This is not just blind opinion, folks.  This is gathered from sixty years of research on the psychiatry of victims of violence and r--.

This also sounds eerily similar to things that victims of domestic try to tell themselves so they can rationalize the situation.  They often tell themselves this is not a big deal as a coping method to survive the traumatic experience.  It is like Stockholm syndrome, in which the victim might try to convince herself that what is happening is okay.  She will try to tell herself that if she in any way felt hurt or angry, it was probably because SHE is in the wrong.  How dare she feel hurt or angry at the way her male partner treated her?  If she had just not bothered him, then he would not have thrown her against a wall and punched her in the face.  She should not have bothered her male partner, why was she nagging him or bothering him?  She deserved to be slapped or punched.

Sadistic subhumans blame the victim for not being happy with their abuse.  "If you don't agree to do it, you're not modern sexually liberated woman."  "Why can't you be fulfilled this way?  Why can't you be pleased this way?"

Like most liberal extremist nonsense, it sounds very similar to abusive, extremist conservative rhetoric nonsense.  This sadomasochist stuff tells women that if they are not fulfilled by this, then they are prudes and sex-haters.  Just like how in the notorious 1950s, women that did not serve and depend on a man, by being sexually submissive, bringing him martinis, were seen as less womanly than other women that did that.  Women were told they were less worthy of love and respect if they were not subservient to men with housework and cleaning and forgetting their own professional careers.

Much like that, now the sadomasochist pimpers are trying to tell these young vulnerable female students that if they do not force themselves into this, they are less womanly than females who do acquiesce to this subjugation.

That is what they are saying, is it not?  That if women do not engage in this, they are prudish, puritan, Christian fundamentalist.  In other words, less womanly.

This is the same sort of twisted sick logic that r--ists use against their victims. 
--
Of course the abusers deny it; that is not really surprising.  All abusers and criminals deny being abusive or criminal.  All abusers think they are healthy normal individuals that contribute positively to society.

Therefore we can see, conclusively, that their opinions of themselves are meaningless.  People are not good at assessing themselves.  Sexual sadists are not exempt from this.  Sadists are probably more susceptible to having skewed inaccurate perceptions of themselves, just like serial r--ists and serial killers.  Pathological, antisocial.

Observing all of it altogether, this is really no different from the way that some males throughout all of human history viewed females.  They thought females were there solely for the purpose of pleasuring males.

It's just that now, they are frighteningly sneaky and underhanded in their public relations.
-----
We are supposed to be about preventing violence against women.  Humanity is supposed to be increasing empathy, compassion, respect for fellow humans.  Yet somehow remarkably, these sickos found a way around that.  They managed to convince some people that women _desire_ violence and abuse.  And specifically, they are saying that women desire sexual violence and abuse.

Let us pose a question to them.  Why are you sadists so against women seeking counseling?  What's wrong with encouraging people that do this, to seek psychological treatment if they wish?  What possible good reason is there for angrily denouncing psychological guidance?

They are livid, they are rabid foaming at the mouth at any suggestion that people that engage in this might seek counseling.  Why is this?  Are they afraid that some counseling will help people think more clearly and become a bit more focused?  And then, perhaps the victim will be able to see that they are in fact being abused, and worse, that they are consenting to that abuse?

Again, apply critical thinking.

No, no, we do not use modern equivalents

This is absolutely a fascination topic, so I think it merits much further observation.  Let us dig really deep into this subject, because there is a lot of woefully unexplored material here.  I stumbled upon this realization and at first I thought it was ground-breaking, and truly it is.  Then I realized it was more than that; it is indeed self-evident truth that has been hidden in plain sight all along.

Several evolutionary psychologists have attempted the laughable and incorrect argument that the modern-day equivalent of male physical fitness and dominance are a formal education and a paycheque that allows one to be able to afford to support a family, up to and including success in business, career, and/or politics --

No, no, we do not use modern equivalents.  It is severely, pathetically comical that so many evolutionary psychologists -- all fat, pudgy, severely out-of-shape white males -- try to make the claim that modern-day methods of acquiring monetary wealth somehow magically replace eons-old human instinctive drivers for reproductive success.

Here is why that line of thinking is incorrect.  When considering the male sex, only in very recent human progress has fitness for acquiring sustenance, provisions, and shelter been regarded as a separate entity from physical capability and physical appearance.

Let us take the discussion back in time roughly 500,000 years.  Our discussion spans from that time to about 20,000 years ago.  Let us examine the drivers and incentives for reproduction back then.

In our evolutionary history, a male's physical prowess was one and the same with his ability to obtain food and shelter.  If a male specimen was good-looking and muscular, this was the same thing as being able to provide for a family.

If he was well-built, solid, muscular, robust (not fat, mind you), this directly and obviously meant he will have the means to hunt for food, tirelessly gather firewood to heat the home, and protect the home from danger.  He would have strength and stamina to allow him to overpower and defeat any attackers.  He would have the capability to defend the home and his family from danger.  From intruders, from dinosaurs and sabretooth tigers, etc.  I jest, but you get the idea.

This of course extended to his physical looks, his face, including bone structure; eyesight; eye placement; adequate, nay, respectable amount of hair growing on his head.  This is because all of this, superficial looks as well as physical stature, is directly correlated with health.  His facial and hair looks and his body were integrated and all of it indicated his level of physical health.

If a male was very good-looking and had good physical stature, this means he will be in possession of natural abilities to obtain food and shelter.  For obvious reasons, this is what females would actively seek out.  She wants these resources for herself and her offspring.  And she of course would want to pass on those optimal genes to her children.

It is very odd, illogical, and remarkably convenient that evolutionary psychologists claim that modern-day men prefer traits that prehistoric females possess, such as looks and physicality.

Yet at the same time, evo-psychs always insist that somehow, magically modern-day women do not prefer traits that prehistoric males possess, such as looks and physicality.

Stated in another way:  evo-psychs insist that men desire women who possess primitive indicators of reproductive success.  In other words, men desire primitive women.

Yet, somehow magically they expect that these women should have primitive traits while simultaneously the women are not going to harbor primitive desires.

Did you catch that?  That is illogical and contradictory.

The truth is that if a female is primitive in that way (in her own indicators of physical health), then she is probably going to be primitive in her reproductive preferences as well.  This primitive woman that modern-day males desire-- will desire a male that has primitive indicators of reproductive success.  She does not want to reproduce with a modern-day male.

Sorry folks, but instinctively, men and women are not so different sometimes.  Instinctively, women most likely still desire a physically elite male with which to reproduce.  That is what is programmed into our primitive origins of our species.  Males and females both want to mate with a physically superior specimen of the opposite sex.

It is the height of denial to attempt the argument that women are not also motivated by these primitive desires.

*Or, perhaps not so much.  In Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," he makes the interesting observation that several of the CEOs in this country are all tall.

On some level of awareness, some plane of consciousness, admit it.  You evo-psychs have always known this.  An upper-middle-class woman has been married to her upper-middle-class husband that is paunchy, pudgy, balding short fat.  The woman is living in luxury, owns designer clothes, belongs to a country club, and has every need of survival more than taken care of.  She has been more than provided for.  But she is screwin the hot, young pool boy.  Or she is screwing the hot young pizza delivery boy.

R-- perpetuates undesired genes

Consider what this line of non-thinking non-theory truly means.

First of all, look at the evidence against this sick, psychopathic notion.  The most basic of common-sense observations easily contradicts this pseudo-theory.  A male that has optimal genetic material, evidenced by his phenotype, appearance, characteristics, traits -- has no problem getting women to accept his genetic material.

The female is the one that has to invest an enormous energy, time, nutrients, effort into the making of an organism.  All biologists and evolutionists acknowledge this fact.  Therefore she will be very discerning in her choice of genetic donor.  Why would she waste time growing offspring that does not come from optimal male DNA?

Short answer -- she would not.  Therefore, if a woman willingly accepts a male's DNA, he probably produces optimal genetic material.

On the other hand, if a male finds that no woman will willingly reproduce with him and therefore he chooses to resort to r---, this fact alone should tell him in and of itself that he does NOT possess optimal genetic material.  A female that turns down a male is controlling for unwanted genes.

The only males that feel the need to resort to r--- are those that have undesirable, suboptimal genes.  Alpha males do not have any trouble spreading their genetic material.  They can do it without force.  Secondary or beta males, etc.  Only males that cannot get anyone to willingly accept their genetic material resort to r---.

Why are they trying to pollute the gene pool with their inferior, undesirable genes by committing r---?  A r--ist must therefore do the entire gene pool of the species a favor and stop committing this crime.

Oh, what, you think that your genes are worth something?  Sorry to tell you the truth, but genes are only worth the extent that someone else will accept them.

Oh, really r-- is justified by evolution because it leads to reproduction of a male r--ist's genes?  Yeah, pull the other one, it plays Hail Mary.  What else you got?  Is looking at r--glorifying pr0n also because of evolution?  How about video games that have r-- as one of the goals?  Is that also covered under the insurance of evolution and reproduction?

How about the atrocities that transgressed at the lollapalooza rehash in 1999?  I guess those sick assholes surrounding the r--ists and screaming, chanting egging them on with rants of "yeah, yeah, reproduce, create a zygote!  continue your genes!"  I guess they were rooting for the r--s to perpetuate their genes.

I'm thinking perhaps this is simply another territorial defense mechanism from insecure males.  They see that women are entering science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields in droves.  And not only that -- we are good at it.  So in a panicked frenzy of anger, bitterness, and resentment, they probably fumbled around, "Ohno! but-but-but-but what can we do to keep them out??  Umm, I dunno I dunno...  I know!  Let's tell women that "science" does not want them!  Let's tell people that the sickest, most violent hate crime against women is perfectly justified and reasonable in the light of 'science!!'  Ha! Perfect, that's it!"

The justification of this pseudo-theory seems to follow thusly:  just propagate your genes as isolated molecular products, the cost to society and fellow human beings be damned.

However, by this logic, murder, armed robbery, and plain old stealing are also evolutionary.  Murder is justified by evolution because if you murder someone, then you can take all their resources -- food, shelter, safety.  This certainly contributes to your fitness as an organism, correct?  Same with armed robbery.

That might very well have been what happened -- hundreds of thousands of years ago.  Our very distant ancestors might have casually resorted to r--.  They did in fact murder, steal, loot, pillage.  That is precisely the reason that that is *not* evolution.  The sort of behavior, which was rampant long ago and far enough back that the culprits were technically a different species, is not evolution.  Being a violent, primitive criminal is not due to evolution.

If anyone tries to justify r-- under any sort of reasoning (as it were), they would have to either:  concede that we as humans, as an evolved species, cannot continue to do this.  To continue to commit crime would prove that we are not any more evolved than any other primates.

-Or- admit that we are not nearly as evolved as we should be.  We are about as psychologically sound and solvent as the average baboon.  We still only have the critical thinking skills of a gorilla, ergo we have a lot of catching up to do.

A gross implication of evolution

Let us look at all this from another angle.  Let us suppose physical fitness is no longer considered a factor in evolutionary fitness or having genes worthy of being passed on.

There are two factors that determine a species', and indeed an individual organism's, evolutionary fitness -- internal resources and external resources.  External are food, shelter, safety.  Internal are genes, physical prowess, ability to reproduce.  For the sake of this discussion let us assume that a species has no complex thought processes or capacity for empathy or compassion.  We shall also assume that any given organism of a species does not possess these capabilities.

If internal resources are paramount, then this would be a good motivator to spread the gene pool out as much as possible.  This is a good motivator against inbreeding.  This would select for fitter organisms because a nonrelated individual could introduce beneficial genes into particular family's gene pool.  Or possibly, an outsider's genes would contain a dominant gene that could cancel out an unwanted recessive gene in a family's gene pool.  [[[gravitating]]]] for the ability to produce healthy offspring.

However, if external resources of food and shelter are most important, then consanguinity is the way to go.  This is not as strange as it sounds.

Also there is the grave risk that an outsider alien to the family bloodline could bring in a number of undesirable genes.

This is why the whole entire freakin royal line of ancient Egypt married brother and sister to each other, as was customary.  This is why European royals would marry within their families.  This is why current Saudi royals and other Saudi wealthy families arrange marriages between first cousins.

If only the ability to obtain resources and sustenance is the important factor, then this is a pretty good argument in favor of inbreeding.

All inbreeding of royal families throughout history has been motivated by the twin dynamics of gene pool preservation and keeping the money in the family.

--Ancient Egyptians.
--Elizabethan and Victorian Europe.
--Current-day Saudi royal family and other rich families.
--Neanderthals -- there weren't that many of them around.  They would have had to inbreed to some extent.

--OR-- evolutionists could make the *logical* conclusion that all these things are primitivity, savagery, degeneration, and devolution.  None of these things are in fact true evolution.

Words Have Definitions that Must Be Adhered To

One of the most abused words in the English language is "evolution."  Now, sure, there are plenty of words that are misused and thrown about, such as "love," "feelings," "communication," all manner of abstract nouns.  There is no question about that.

But I believe that this particular term should receive special concern for the reason that so-called scientists are using the word with abandon.  Also, the word "evolution" is charged, keg powder volatile, aggravated, with bias from both sides.  It is politically stretched to snapping like one of Petrocles' victims.

The field of so-called evolutionary psychology appears to be fraught with corruption, appalling lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers, ___

It is flooded with teeming of what appears to be simple wishful thinking from these psychologists.

I am worried because this nonsense is being sold to the public as "science."  Science is a vast, broad field that is supposed to deal only in facts, observable and repeatable data, and conclusions arrived at from those facts and data.  I am simply trying to continue on the work of the notable skeptic and debunker, James Randi.

"Slap a new label on it, put it on a lunchbox, and call it --" like Malcolm was saying in Jurassic park.

Crackpot, cockamamie theories.  The "experts," the so-called researchers, the people who write these sort of articles and then manage to get them published in peer-reviewed journals are the ones perpetuating this hogwash.  It does not seem that they subject this to a whole lot of critical analysis.  And unfortunately, the peer reviewers evidently were shadowed by wishful thinking as well.

They have been pulling ridiculous nonsense out of their collective ass.

*The notion that men want to whore around with as many women as possible due to "evolution" and would never dream of settling down because that would harsh his jive and cramp his style, and that women have an evolutionary draw to remain chaste, monogamous, virginal, pure, to never have sex at all other than the three times to produce three offspring, et cetera.

The most important thing to remember is that none of this is true to establish working evolution.  If humans wish to move civilization forward and foster a healthy society, they love the one they're with.  To keep a species consistently on the forward track in the evolution train, people need to pair-bond.  I already covered this topic and debunked it in an earlier article.  I have also provided links to researchers who have discredited these unscientific fantasies, so I won't rehash it all.

*A particularly comical theory is the posit that because humans do not have the engorged blue buttocks similar to other primates, that this species required other indicators.  Therefore for humans, the butt transitioned to the boobs.  Good lord, I wish I were making this up.

Personal opinions and biases are coloring what should be objective observation and critical thinking.

**Just as psychology and philosophy inevitably fall victim to the unfortunate ___

Several people have observed this to be true for some of the arguably greatest thinkers of our era, including Nietzsche, Marx, et al.

It is not necessarily the psychologists' own fault for this peculiar trend.  After all, within its very definition, its very nature, the fields of psychology and observational biology are subject to the whims and fancies of the proprietors.  The definition of Psychology is the study of human behavior, faults, imperfections.

Like [[[___ some philosopher said,]]]], "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, then we would be so simple that we could not."  This is merely an extension of that.  We are all human, including the humans that study us and study themselves.  Therefore they inevitably fall prey to the same faults to which ALL humans fall prey.

Humans are prone to personal bias.  Therefore, of course psychologists, including those that study any and all branches of psychology, are also prone to personal bias.

Blowing a lot of hot air will inevitably happen.

**We have observed this to be true of ordinary people in realms of sociopolitical opinion, social mores, political leanings, religious preferences.

So the [[[[point]]] is, are psychologists and current-day philosophers so arrogant that they do not see themselves as potentially fallible?

As the situation is currently in evolutionary psychology, it is mostly conjecture and opinion.  Does no one remember the "Dihydrogen monoxide" experiment, which called for cautionary thinking against junk science?

Correlation does not prove causality.  This is a concept that even people that have taken an introductory sociology course can grasp.
--
Read this essay written by a blogger, which states that empathy, compassion, and cooperation are signs of an evolved species, and violent crimes including r-- are not.  ____

One might put forth the argument that because this person does not have some sort of degree in psychology, their argument is invalid.  I put forth to you this question:  why does one necessarily need a degree in psychology to hold a valid, logical argument in psychology?  If this were a matter of treating patients, then yes, one would need a medical degree.  But evolutionary psychologists are not treating any patients here.  They are only making broad generalizations.

This is such a discipline that a person can arrive at as much of a sound conclusion simply by observing human behavior, doing extensive study on one's own, taking one or two classes in any of the social sciences, and informally reading psychology journals -- as by earning a formal degree in it.  Quite literally, social science is not rocket science in any way, shape, or form.  One does not need an advanced degree to be a skilled psychologist for the same reason that one does not need a veterinary degree to know why a pet dog is not properly laying eggs.

Again, fields like psychology and sociologically inevitably fall prey to human opinion.  These are not hard sciences in the way that natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering are.  Those are definitives that conclude absolute truths.  Something either is or isn't.

This is not the case with psychology and sociology.  Social science by definition is not an absolute discipline.  It is fluid, ___ elusive, ever-changing,

It is impossible

This is an unavoidable truth of these disciplines.

    draw parallels, hypotheses__

Examples:

Social Darwinism

Keith Booker, president of the Wilmington, Del., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, says that Gottfredson's research "... is being done in the name of white supremacy... the Pioneer Fund supports only research that tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another."[1]

1. "Delaware Reaches Accord On Race Studies" By Ron Kaufman The Scientist 6[14]:1, Jul. 06, 1992

Now, I want to clarify that it is most certainly possible to be rational, unbiased, and truly analyze with an [[[__unbiased__]]] eye.  However, this would require tremendous self-control, a capacity that most humans do not possess.

Are so-called evolutionary psychologists actually trained to handle their job with professionalism and courtesy?  I mean in their college courses, are they trained to put aside their own personal prejudices when observing and analyzing human behavior?  In order for a professor to do this, he/she would have to provide realistic examples.  They must mention real-world situations that might have happened to people, to which students can relate.  They have the professional responsibility to bring up real-world instances that are common sources of error, and to demonstrate how to weed out personal desire from social theory.  There is taint.  They only see what they want to see.

--[[[[ and most impr, we have morals.  We have self-restraint____
** we have have the ability to refrain from committing criminal acts.
** we have the capacity for self-restraint [[[restrain ourselves from succumbing to violent, primitive urges.]]]]]
]]]]]]]]

We are sentient beings.  [[[[As members of the specie Homo sapiens, we have consciousness.  We are capable of consciously controlling our actions.  We have the capacity to think about our actions before [[[doing,, carryijg them out]]].  We can think bef we speak, and we can think bef we act.

We have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of certain decisions.  We have the ability to guess the consequences of any potential action we consider doing.  We can extrapolate into the future and determine what the most likely outcome would be of a hypothetical situation.

___pigs dogs apes if physiccal__. if that's all they've got going for them, then yeah __physicla designations would be an indicator of evolutionary fitness.

Hovew we homo sapiens are a higher order of being.  We are a higher life form.
-----
*mentin difference between abstarct nouns ans concrete nouns.  A simialr ___ exists-Same thing with human behavior and psycholoy.  There are concrete [[__descriptors of that exist within the physical universe ((realm))_]]] such as biology.  These are easily quantifiable and measurable in terms of pure [[[[physicalit???__]]

*there are also abstract behavioral patterns such as conscience and consciousness.  [[[aspects of the human experience]]]

Why Atheists Are A-Holes

Even without having to fall back on the old standby of a deity, atheists still manage to be misogynistic as all get out.

It's just that they no longer have a God delusion to fall back on anymore, so they have to find another delusion.  Similar to how extremist religious fundamentalists/zealots make the claim that a female's body is not her own; it belongs to the dude that wants to make her his child bride, or it belongs to G-d, or to a fetus.

In a similar fashion, pseudo-evolutionists wish to make the claim that a female's body is not her own.  It belongs to whomever else due to whatever reason, whether evolution, reproduction, the selfish gene, et cetera.

If you are such great damn scientists and biology-based ethicists, then you must realize there is no reason to end biological arguments there.  Hell, if we're going to make so-called biological arguments, there are a lot of other potential biology-based regulations we can implement.

A girl at around age twelve develops the ability to dispense an ovum once every month from her ovaries.  She develops the ability to house and carry a fetus to term.

A boy at around age twelve develops the ability to produce sperm from his body.  Since we are making biological arguments here, after all, it only makes sense that__
Biologically and sexually, these two twelve-year olds are adults.  They fully possess the capability to produce and grow an entire new human being.

What's that you say?  That we are higher beings with the capacity for reason?  For logic, for levelheadedness, for having the ability to judge a situation, weigh the pros and cons, and determine the optimal outcome that will give the best possible results?

Self-touted atheists seem to think that they alone possess the patent on the capability to utilize logic.  Anyone who disagrees with them must by default be "illogical."  Notice that they seem to think the ability to pronounce "evolution" correctly alone qualifies them to wear a gold star bearing the label "science-y."  Many of them do not have a remarkable wealth of scientific knowledge outside the very narrow topic of evolution.

How about empathy, compassion, respect, care and concern for your fellow human beings?  What about conducting oneself with self-respect and dignity?  So-called logic-driven, scientifical, evolution-thumpers always seem to skip this very large faction of human cognitive function.  Their brand of logic is, not surprisingly, a lot of bs.

Evolutionary Psychology- This Is Not Progress Part II

Past evolution does not determine our future destiny.

"Evolutionary psychology" is a contradiction in terms -- it is an oxymoron.  You know what an oxymoron is, don't you?  Remember being introduced to that word in high school English class?  It means a contradiction in terms.

By its very definition, abstract concepts such as sociology, society, psychology, cannot be biology.  Biology is a definite, distinct, concrete concept.  It is actual science.  It is not of the evasive, fluid, ever-changing nature that is the "social sciences."  That phrase is most likely used euphemistically, to allow the studiers (people that major in those subjects in college, and people that write editorial articles about them) to feel better about themselves.  To help themselves feel that they are studying something useful.

We are evolved human beings.  We have the capability for conscious thought, willpower, and control over our actions.  We have the capacity to control so that all of our thoughts indiscriminately do not turn into actions.

Therefore, I strongly believe that we have evolved to the point that we can decide for ourselves whether or not we want to continue to let evolution determine our human behavior.  This is uniquely our gift and our blessing, as a species that has only existed for a few tens of thousands of years.  It is also our curse and our burden.  We cannot simply use the excuse that our genes made us do it.  Or that we have no control over our instincts.  To do that would be irresponsible and morally outrageous.

One might ask, why are no other species expected to display this sort of conscious decision-making?  Why has no other species been expected to display a conscience?  Why are they not expected to deliberately affect their actions?  Why can other species simply follow their instincts wherever "evolution" leads them, whereas we should not?

First of all, let us examine the definition of the word "evolution" as it is currently used in evolutionary psychology circles.  Evolution, as used in that context, means specifically the evolutionary *history* of any given species.  It of course includes the entire evolutionary tree of all species of living things on the planet.

The word should not be used, as is mistakenly assumed by far too many people, as an explanation of *current* human behavior or of *future* human behavior.  That is not the correct definition of "evolution."  The word is not being used, as it correctly should be, as a study of the molecular DNA and protein patterns expressed in the genotype and phenotype of an animal.

Remember being in seventh grade English class and learning the difference between concrete nouns and abstract nouns?  Unfortunately, the word "evolution" is used nowadays as a descriptive of abstract behavioral and social concepts.  This is incorrect.  "Evolution" used correctly as a term deals purely with the physical natural sciences of chemistry and biology.

The specific definition of a word including its usage has implications.  "Evolution" is used by too many sound bite-writers as a descriptive to excuse away any abhorrent behavior.  Evolution from a scientific standpoint -- which should be the only standpoint worth considering -- is strictly a genetic descriptor.  It is an explanation for genes located on chromosomal material, which contribute to protein synthesis.  Evolution is, and should be, studied at the molecular level.

Biological evolution has been the driving force throughout much of the earth's history only because all those other species lacked self-awareness.  They did not possess good judgment, nor the ability to weigh options, nor the conscious ability to make decisions.  They simply existed.

Raw instinct was the only guiding factor for behavior.  The direction of biochemical generation of more members of a given species was what drove reproduction as well as mutations.  “The selfish gene” was fine as the primary driver of behavior for all creatures that came before us.

However, this cannot pass muster with us modern-day Homo sapiens.

What are the tenets of evolved, civilized beings?
They must have a capacity for rational thought as well as for abstract thought.  Display empathy, compassion, worrying about the feelings of others.  Also have a capability for imagination, creativity, daydreaming.  Being lost in thought seems to be a peculiarity of humans.  higher beings have sentience, they are self-aware.

Evolutionists, this is true whether you want to admit it or not.  Simple biological urges do not make a human more evolved than another human who can choose not to succumb to basal urges.

This is what anthropologists study, especially when they compare reasoning processes of various primates.  If apes such as gorillas and chimpanzees can display advanced thought, and they are more evolved than reptiles and amphibians and amoeba, then it stands to reason that their ability for abstract thought is a result of evolving to a higher order of life.

Then we must follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusions.  Humans are more evolved forms of apes.  There is no excuse for humans not to engage in morality, empathy, compassion, and humanity.

Evolutionists must concede with this.  If humans are the most advanced, evolved species on the planet, then this is the only logical outcome as a result of determining what is the best behavior.

Simply put -- precisely because we are evolved, is why we cannot simply let our "wants" do our thinking for us.  We have the ability not to just follow our instincts blindly.  Not to surrender to our basal instincts.  Many folks will argue that a penchant for settling disputes through violence and an inclination towards reproducing any time one feels "horny" are artifacts of evolution.

However, as evolved beings, we cannot use those excuses.  Humans might still have violent urges, and humans might still have promiscuous urges, but that is not all we have.  We also have the ability to deduce the consequences of our actions.  If we have a capacity for reasoning and higher thought, then we have a responsibility as the most evolved species on the planet to put those capacities to good use.

The incorrect version of the word "evolution" dictates that any physical superiority of one individual, or of society, outweighs any psychological morality.  Anyone with any physical defects, for example heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure -- should all just be conveniently killed.  This would preserve all available resources for the optimal specimens of the population.

According to the "wrong" evolution, in the interest of keeping undesirable genes out of the gene pool, anyone with any mental deficiencies would not be allowed to live.  This means that
This is not so far-fetched.  The ancient Spartans exercised this very practice.
In this instance, the mental health of the population is questionable.

I think we have evolved to the point that we can decide for ourselves if we want to continue letting physical impulses dictate our behavior.

Because we have judgment, we have consciences, we know right from wrong.  If we have full consciousness, then we can consciously make decisions.

I know that some stupid evolution-as-excuse-for-immoral-behavior windbag will think they are oh so clever with this query:  "If we are just apes, then why do you have to be so judgmental?  If we believe in evolution, and therefore that means we came from apes, then why can we not be promiscuous, amoral troglodytes?"

Actually, I can answer that one too:  Because we *are* evolved beings.

Precisely because we came from apes, because we can trace our lineage back to primitive hominids -- is why we must hold ourselves to a higher standard.  Precisely because we came from apes:  "from" meaning we are no longer there.  We have grown psychologically and morally.  We have moved on.

We are sentient creatures.  We are self-aware beings.  We have evolved to the point that we cannot rely only on physical pre-destined behavior.  We have the gift of judgment.  We have been given a sense of right and wrong.  We have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a situation, and decide on the best course of action that would have the most moral outcome for the most people.

We are better than gorillas and baboons and other lower apes.  Because we are humans, we have morality, empathy, good judgment, compassion.  Just because we believe that evolution happened is no excuse to be okay with promiscuity, having casual sex, not bothering to establish a working emotional relationship with a person first before deciding to have sex with them.

more arguments in favor of cooperation.  incl members of the same species not violently attacking each other.
in addition to the arguments already put forth by Darwin and others.  in Origin of Species (first edition, Ch. 8), Darwin called this behavior the "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory."

Cooperation, empathy, and compassion are the markers of an evolved, advanced species.  It is behavior and choices, not raw biological physical instinct, that determine the degree of evolution that a species has undergone.  Not being a violent criminal that victimizes another.  Evolution is actually quite an ideal argument in favor of absolute morality.

While We're On The Subject... Let Us Turn The Argument On Its Head

If we are going to try to assert that r-- is due to evolution, then by this same reasoning we would have to conclude that <all> forms of physical conquering are motivated by evolution.  Might makes right, after all.

*Fistfights between males.  a
is fitter than a physically weaker
This is where the concept of war originated.  The team that wins the war has proven its fitness over the other team.  Thus, the winning team gets to preserve its genetic fitness by copulating.  females would be drawn to the

Many attempt to argue that the modern equivalent of physical fitness and dominance are a formal education and a paycheque that allows one to be able to afford to support a family --

No, no, we do not use modern equivalents.  In considering men, only in recent human progress has fitness for acquiring sustenance, provisions, and shelter been regarded as a separate entity from physical capability and physical appearance.

*Or, perhaps not so much.  In Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," he makes the interesting observation that several of the CEOs in this country are all tall.

----
Let us dissemble their pseudo-logic argument and then pulverize it one piece at a time.

They think that evolution is due to physical prowess as stand-in for logic.

By that argument, there is no reason for anyone to care if a victim is murdered who is not related to them.

What about genocide?  If it is not your immediate family being murdered, i.e., no one that carries a fragment of your genes, then there is no reason to care.

Destruction of people outside your blood family.  This would increase the dominance of your family, and will preserve the fitness of your genes.  Your genes after all, would have access to the best resources if your genes are the ones in power.

Plain survival and preference of one's own genes.  Plus dominance and power of your genes over someone else's genes.

*Fear of the unknown-- genes other than your own genes.  Early hominids would take an instant distrust to strangers.  From one angle, this makes sense.  There is no reason to trust a stranger -- they might kill all your babies and take all your stuff and your wimmin.

*Keeping stuff for yourself, for your own genes.

By a very small extension, this would include your distant relatives as well.  Any method possible to preserve one's own genetic pool, however distantly separated, would be a motivator.  People that look more like you are most closely related to you.  If anyone tries to say that r-- is because of evolution, then you would have to concede that racism is also an innate social motivation that has origins in evolution.

Following this same line of reasoning, you would have to make this concession as well.  Racism is nothing more severe than the assertion that one's own gene pool is best.

I am certainly not the first person to assert this.

*All genocide in the history of the world is based on this very postulate.

It is only logical that they were all motivated by evolution.  Ethnic cleansing is driven by the motivation to preserve one's own genes in their purest, most complete form.

This is precisely why Islamicist militant groups feel that they are entitled to world domination.  They want to destroy anyone that does not look like them and does not think like them.  This is precisely why white supremacist groups hate, loathe, and fear intermarriage and intermixing with other ethnic groups.  They want to preserve their way of life.  They are evolutionarily motivated, after all.