Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Sitting across from the treasury







Our history is filled with violence
Demolish its icons

Our heritage is loaded with exploitation
Sue their asses off

We cannot undo the wrongs of our past
Demonetize those deviants

We must acknowledge truth to begin to heal
Censor rival narratives

We need to work together to fight fascism and restore justice
Donate today and pledge your last two lepta












Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Silence is Violence







Me:  No justice, no peace! 
You:  Yes!

Me:  No justice, no peace! 
You:  Absolutely! 

Me:  Black lives matter! 
You:  Yes!

Me:  Black lives matter! 
You:  Yes! Absolutely!

Me:  End racist policies!
You:  End racist policies!

Me:  End racist police brutality!
You:  End racist police brutality!

Me:  White silence is violence!
You:  Wait… What?!?

Me:  All Lives Matter is racist! 
You:  Ummm… No, it’s not. 

Stop! STOP!! STOOOOOOOOOP!! 

Wait a minute!

Why is white silence violence?



Me:  Because white people casually harbor racist ideas, and racist thoughts are linked to policies that create harmful social, economic, cultural, and political disparities. 
You:  I'm not sure what you mean by racist thoughts being “linked" to policies, or how that's any different from a thousand other ideas that could be loosely construed alongside harmful policies. 

Evolutionary thoughts are linked to polices that are harmful. 

Materialistic and consumeristic thoughts could be perceived as harmful "links." 

Agnostic and atheistic thoughts could also be "linked." 

Should we police those thoughts, too? 



Me:  No. Just the racist thoughts, because they’re harmful. 
You:  That's weird. In your opinion, what exactly constitutes “harm”?

Me:  Casually harboring racist ideas.
You:  What if I don’t know that I’m casually harboring ideas in a way that you define as racist, and the ideas per se do not involve the superiority of any particular race?

Me:  You’d still be a racist. 
You:  But that’s the very essence of the Webster’s Dictionary definition for a “racist”—one whose beliefs involve an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Me:  No. You’re wrong. My point is that Webster's Dictionary provides an inadequate definition of a racist. Experts agree with me on this. There is a black man and award-winning scholar, Ibram Kendi, who studied the history of racist ideas, and he defines a racist this way: One who is supporting a racist policy or is expressing a racist idea through their actions or inaction.
You:  But that means you could accuse me of being racist just by a lack of action on my part, even if I didn’t have a racist bone in my body. And that would be absurd!

Me:  How can you say you don’t have a racist bone in your body while living in a country where white racism and white supremacy persists unchecked?
You:  That's the most irrational rhetoric I've heard in a long time. 

Allow me to ask you the same kind of question: How can you say you’re not a pedophile while living in a country where pedophilia and prostituting minors persists unchecked?



Me:  That’s different. Racism isn’t the same as prostitution or pedophilia. And besides, my point is that if you’re not actively antiracist, then you’re racist. It’s not sufficient anymore to “not be racist” and not promote racist ideas, because that idea itself casually harbors a racist idea. 
You:  Then you need to be actively anti-pedophile. You can’t just not be a pedophile and not do pedophile things and not promote pedophiles. That's because, according to your contrived redefinition of terms, if you’re not actively anti-pedophile, you are a pedophile.


So then, if you don’t actively protest, share, and promote the takedown, exposure of, and civil action against those reputable circles of pedophiles, you are a pedophile. 



Me:  No. That's now how this works. I’m not just going to believe whatever you tell me, and then share your opinion publicly. And just because I don't share your opinion, that doesn't make me a pedophile. 
You:  You’re just casually harboring pedophile ideas.

Me:  Now you’re just being intellectually dishonest. You’re using the real definition of a racist and mixing it with a completely different subject. Racism and pedophilia are two entirely different things. 
You:  I know they’re “different” subjects. But the principle between the two is the exact same. That’s how analogies work. My analogy is valid, and it illustrates that your contrived definition of a “racist” is too ubiquitous to be clearly helpful. 

Me:  I'm sick of watching these kinds of gymnastics that white people are doing in order to deny that systemic racism exists.
You:  What?!? 

If an entire population suddenly redefined the identity of things according to your methodology, the world would hopelessly decline in their ability to reason cogently.

For example, imagine every American suddenly redefining a nail as merely a "sharp pointy metal object" or a "metal object that is not intentionally designed to be blunt." Half of the world who merely used that redefinition wouldn't know exactly what you meant, because sharp pointy metal objects are everywhere! And tons of pointy metal objects are designed to not be blunt, and not be nails

That is why we don't suddenly re-identify things with nebulous or slippery meanings. Some of these novel rhetorical maneuvers of yours are just too unhelpful for lots of people I know.

Can't you see that our basic disagreement is not with systemic racism existing, but with there being a widespread travesty of language to communicate the eradication of racism?




Me:  Your comments reaffirm what we’ve been saying all along. White people casually change the definition of words so they don’t apply to them anymore. 

In this case, white people change the definition of “racist.” And we are fed up with the oppression resulting from it. 

Racist bullshit needs to stop.


















Sunday, May 31, 2020

Gladiatorial Catharsis







We're all in this struggle together
Cry out and demand justice
Black lives matter more than white feelings

It wasn't the black thugs who killed the white store-owner
It was the loss of blood
Y'all with me?

It wasn't the vandals who broke the glass of that storefront
It was the bricks and benches
Y'all with me?

It wasn't the white punk with the mask who set that shop on fire
It was the lighter and lighter fluid
Y'all with me?

We're all in this struggle together
Cry out and demand justice
Black lives matter more than white feelings

It wasn't the crowd's fault that corner stores and shopping centers were looted
It was society's fault for not providing enough justice
Y'all with me?

We're all in this struggle together
Cry out and demand justice
Black lives matter more than white feelings

It wasn't white Antifa anarchists who spray-painted those buildings
It was the radical alt-right
Y'all with me?

It wasn't an unruly riot, of burning and bashing and destroying
It was mostly a protest
Y'all with me?

It wasn't the cop that killed the black guy
It was his own lungs that stopped working
Y'all with me?

We're all in this psyop together
Cry out and demand justice
Black lives matter more than white feelings








Thursday, May 28, 2020

The Description






Infanticide remains the most contested political issue in American life. Poll results have remained surprisingly constant over the years, with roughly equal numbers supporting and opposing it. A common perception is that infanticide is contrary to Christian teaching and values. While some have challenged that perception, few have attempted a comprehensive critique and constructive counterargument on Christian ethical and theological grounds. Margaret Kamitsuka begins with a careful examination of the church’s biblical and historical record, refuting the assumption that Christianity has always condemned infanticide or that it considered personhood as beginning at the moment of conception. She then offers carefully crafted ethical arguments about the pregnant woman’s authority to make reproductive decisions and builds a theological rationale for seeing infanticide as something other than a sin.

There, I adjusted one word. Now the description is intellectually honest.












Thursday, May 14, 2020

Cognitive Dissonance








Journalist:  
Good morning. In the next few days Americans will die of this novel virus, and those deaths will likely eclipse the total combined amount of deaths in the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars.

FarmerJoe:  
If you think that’s big, you should pay attention to how many deaths and life-destroying injuries are caused by vaccines. Oh, and don’t forget that Planned Parenthood murders thousands of infants every year, too, FAR beyond covid-19 deaths.

LionBow:  
None of this is true. “Abortion” has nothing to do with “infants”. Vaccines save millions of lives every year, as we don’t lose children and adults to diseases like polio or the measles anymore. You might want to stay away from conspiracy theory websites.

FarmerJoe: 
Wait. Wait. Wait. Are you seriously resting your entire response on semantics? 
My point doesn't depend upon using an apolitically correct term one time. 
To your point: If “abortion”, i.e. the termination of a human pregnancy, has “nothing” to do with infants, then why are they killed inside the womb before expulsion? 
Were the children in the womb not human or alive?

LionBow:  
They weren't "children" at all. You are attempting to change the meaning of words to fraudulently strengthen your statement and pull on heart strings. That is dishonest.

FarmerJoe: 
I’m the one being “dishonest”? 
I agree with all of medical and scientific literature: children, infants, and fetuses are fully human beings. 
So at what point do you advocate homicide (i.e. the killing of another human being)? 
Inside the womb it’s okay, but outside it’s not?

LionBow: 
You are being dishonest. Fetuses aren't infants as you claimed them to be. And, no one should be forced to give up the use of their body against their will. Having sex does not create a contractual agreement to carry a fetus to term.

FarmerJoe: 
It doesn’t seem to me that you care enough about the human-being being murdered inside the mother’s womb. So far, you haven’t answered my other questions.

LionBow: 
I don’t advocate the killing of anyone at any time. But, I don’t think that anyone should be forced to give up the use of their body against their will so that another can survive. "Infants", by definition, cannot be killed in the womb. Fetuses are not infants. Your statement was false. And, no human being should be forced to give up the use of their bodies against their will. Abortion is sad, but the right for women to control their reproduction is vital. 

FarmerJoe: 
Again, you’re playing Semantics. 
Are fetuses human? 
Are they human beings who are alive before being aborted? 
I’m glad to see that you agree with me, that the human being in the womb should not be forced to give up the use of his/her body against his/her will.

LionBow: 
You must have reading comprehension issues. No one should be forced to give up the use of their body to ANOTHER against their will. Women shouldn't be forced to carry fetuses to term against their will.

FarmerJoe: 
Should any female human fetus’ body be forced against its will to give up the use of its body and die?
Honest question. 
Is that justified because the mother is killing the daughter inside her body?

LionBow: 
Your question is nonsensical. My point is simple. People shouldn't be forced against their will to give up the use of their body to keep another alive. Should we be forced to give up organs to save others?

FarmerJoe: 
I find it interesting that I’m being accused of toying with the meaning of words, yet you have changed the meaning of abortion, i.e. the killing of a human being inside its mothers womb, to mean: being forced to give up the use of ones body to keep another person alive. That’s sad.

LionBow: 
I'm not changing the meaning at all. I fully understand and agree that a byproduct of aborting a pregnancy is the death of the fetus. But, when you force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will you are forcing that woman to give up the use of her body against her will.

FarmerJoe: 
Wow. Now the murder of an innocent human being in its mothers womb is being described as the “byproduct” of abortion. 
How convenient. 
So is it okay to murder a fully BIRTHED child outside its mothers womb if that, too, is a “byproduct” of some procedure chosen by its mother?

LionBow: 
Obviously not, as once the baby is born, it is no longer necessary for it to use the mother's body against her will. She can give it up for adoption.

FarmerJoe:  
Why is it “obviously” not okay once the baby is born, but it’s okay if the baby is not yet born? 
We are both talking about a HUMAN baby, correct? 
Why can’t the mother NOT kill her baby in the womb, give birth, and then give it up for adoption?

LionBow: 
A woman should not be forced to give up the use of her body against her will. Once the baby is born, that is no longer at issue. If we force women to carry fetuses to term why not force people to donate organs to save lives? Because it is a violation of our constitutional rights.



**RETURNS TO CHECK ON THE INITIAL COMMENTS**



Journalist:  
Good morning. In the next few days Americans will die of this novel virus, and those deaths will likely eclipse the total combined amount of deaths in the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars.

FarmerJoe:  
If you think that’s big, you should pay attention to how many deaths and life-destroying injuries are caused by vaccines. Oh, and don’t forget that Planned Parenthood murders thousands of infants every year, too, FAR beyond covid-19 deaths.

LionBow:  
None of this is true. “Abortion” has nothing to do with “infants”. Vaccines save millions of lives every year, as we don’t lose children and adults to diseases like polio or the measles anymore. You might want to stay away from conspiracy theory websites.

FarmerJoe:  
Vaccines SAVE lives? 
I don’t think you have looked into that subject very deep. 
Did Gardisil SAVE lives?

LionBow:  
Vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of lives. Polio alone used to kill 1 in 4 children. Measles used to kill close to that amount. Vaccines have almost completely itradicated them. Just as with all medicines, there are risks, but the benefits far outweigh those risks.

FarmerJoe:  
I believe I offered resources first. So how about you do better than a quick google search to cofirm your bias, and actually watch the video I linked to and read the book I attached.

LionBow:  
I have researched the subject. There is overwhelming evidence that vaccines are effective and save lives.

FarmerJoe: 
Well then, you shouldn’t have any problem writing a detailed review and rebuttal of the resources I already provided (above)



LionBow:  
Laugh all you want, but an overwhelming majority of experts in preventable diseases agree with me. You are part of a fringe group that believes in an unfounded conspiracy.

FarmerJoe: 
Since others seem to like this post, they should look into the hundreds of peer reviewed medical literature about vaccine safety. Be informed with real science, not reactionary, blind faith: Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers 

BoozyMerchant: 
The person who wrote that book isn't a doctor and is the director of an anti vaccine book. It's not peer reviewed work at all. It's him manipulating the data of who knows what studies.

FarmerJoe:  
I think it’s hilariously obvious that you have not read the book. 
It contains HUNDREDS of peer reviewed studies cited in it. 
“It’s not peer reviewed at all”, said the idiot who wiki searched other idiotic opinion-blogs instead of reading the actual book.

BoozyMerchant:  
His book analyzes released studies. His own analysis is not peer reviewed and the book was released to horrible reviews by the scientific community.

Why don't you just admit you're a shill for the anti-vaccine movement? There's not one legit scientist out there saying "look, maybe we need to reanalyze vaccine risks." Not one. You're making shit up to push conspiracy theories and authors who make money off the anti-vaxx movement.

FarmerJoe: 
I’m a shill? 
Are you serious? 
I personally know CHILDREN who are vaccine injured 
I personally know adults who are vaccine injured 
I personally know three children who have DIED from vaccines
Do you have anything more to offer than insensitive and naively canned accusations? 
Watch this video and try to HONESTLY accuse all these VICTIMS of being “shills”

BoozyMerchant: 
Fortunately for us all, you have very few followers and very few interactions with real accounts.

FarmerJoe:  
Also, fortunately, I’m not a shill. I just care about others who are vaccine injured, and I care about real vaccine data, and real interactions with people who have been injured by vaccines, and I know others personally who are vaccine injured and/or have died from vaccines.

BoozyMerchant:  
Almost all made up horseshit with a few coincidences. You're completely full of shit, yes. You are a shill. You share videos by people who take advantage of people. You're the second worst kind of human. The worst are the makers of this videos. Then there's you, pushing their lies.

FarmerJoe: 
You cannot possibly be serious?  
I have not met many people as insensitive and conceited and myopic as you right now. 
If you watch the video I linked above, you’d have to be completely heartless to accuse the people who share this as “shills”!

BoozyMerchant: 
They're not shills, they've been taken advantage of. You're a shill. The maker of that video - shill. Worse, you spread this shit. You're literally just a fake news dump to the world. 

FarmerJoe: 
What is wrong with you? 
I don’t have the slightest idea why you have made a point of throwing bogus accusations like “shill” at strangers like me. 
It’s really childish and unnecessary.

BoozyMerchant:  
Vaxxed are movies by Andrew Wakefield. He's a known liar for the anti-vaxx movement. He is a discredited scientist. You're just a pusher for stupidity.

FarmerJoe: 
I get the feeling that the most you know is from google searches and blogs that confirm your biases.  If you’re truly interested in Andrew Wakefield and whether you’re just blindly following the mantras of others, watch this film:

BoozyMerchant:  
I'm not going to watch videos that defend a man that lied, then built a career on that lie. Or did you not know that he had corporations ready to profit off his research that he owned? I'm not interested in anything you have to say at this point. You’re discredited yourself.

FarmerJoe:  
How do you know the film defends Andrew Wakefield if you haven’t watched it?
And how do you know he lied, instead of others lying about him? 
You’d have to watch the film to even comment.
I can’t think of anyone with such an arrogant confirmation bias as yourself.

BoozyMerchant:  
What I said is completely true and provable by the fact you are posting clips from Andrew Wakefield movies.

FarmerJoe:  
Actually, the three video clips I shared are, as far as I know, not produced by Wakefield. 
The first two were from the sequel to Wakefield’s one and only film. 
And the third was produced and directed by an independent studio. 
Adding to that, have you even seen Wakefield’s actual film?

BoozyMerchant:  
He’s literally a snake oil salesman and you are literally a moron for believing him. There's a half dozen books written before him that tried the same thing. All wildly misrepresenting the studies inside. 
Andrew Wakefield basically abused the children in his study as well. He's an unethical piece of shit and you're a moron who follows his successors blindly.

FarmerJoe:  
I cannot fathom how childish and incoherent your remarks are. Please cite these books you’re thinking of, so I can study them also.

BoozyMerchant:  
No. You can Google your favorite author and see all the other books with similar goals that wildly misreport and misrepresent actual science. I'm done with you. You associate with the scummiest snake oil shit in America right now while misrepresenting real science.

FarmerJoe:  
How convenient. 1st you accuse me of being a “shill” with zero evidence. 
Then you claim to personally know a “half dozen” books that are somehow relevant to discrediting what I have shared so far. 
But as soon as I ask you what some of those books are, you name-call and evade.

RandomZah:  
These damn anti-vaccine people need to go to a 100+ year old graveyard and look at all the headstones of children that didn’t make it to the age of 3. Maybe that will help set it right in their minds how well vaccines work.

FarmerJoe:  
Tell that to the parents of children who are severely injured or died from vaccines: https://youtu.be/CC8QZD3IG3I

LionBow:  
So your anecdotal "stories" should outweigh decades of scientific studies and actual evidence?

FarmerJoe:  
*My* anecdotal stories? 
“Decades” of “scientific” studies? 
Do you just regurgitate mainstream pablum? 
You sure don’t seem well researched in either anecdotes or scientific studies.

RandomZah:  
Most every article written by virologist and immunologist’s ever done agree with me. I trust them far more than some rando on twitter. But hey you do you and maybe your children won’t sue you when they get old enough to know what potential pain you put them through.

FarmerJoe: 
They agree with *you*?  

*You* must be someone special.