Brief Contemplation on the Nature of Evil

My years while limited have seen it’s share of evil both face to face and from a far.  When people think of evil they tend to think of dramatic behaviour, mass murders, ruthless killers and the like.  But evil while it can be dramatic also occurs in ordinary ways.  There is mundane evil, whose destructiveness is less visible and perhaps even more insidious. This is what I have observed.

1.  Lazy, preferring the appearance of good to any actual effort to do so.
2.  Refuses to delay gratification, related to one above.
3.  Lies and deceives not from duress or threat of punishment but as a first act. The lie is part of the fabric of their being.

Finally, I will note if we are intellectually honest there is a little bit of the foregoing is us all.

Logical Substitutions Relationship Edition

Which quote below is a myth busting reasoned defense and which one is a hideous attempt to normalize the profane and immoral.

“But above all, polyamory is less about sex specifically but rather pursuing relationships with multiple partners. While there’s no one way to be polyamorous, as the Atlantic points out, these relationships are often stable, loving and no less serious or committed than two-partner relationships. And the functional nature of The Poly Life highlights just how thoughtfully constructed these relationships, including those that involve families with children, can be.”

“But above all, pedophilia is less about sex specifically but rather pursuing relationships with young partners. While there’s no one way to be a pedophile, as the Atlantic points out, these relationships are often stable, loving and no less serious or committed than adult relationships. And the functional nature of The Pedo Life highlights just how thoughtfully constructed these relationships, including those that later involve families with children, can be. “

Lacking a Basic Ability to Reason

If this article is representative of our culture’s ability to draw distinctions, western civilization is finished.  It is titled, We Asked Men to Draw Vaginas to Prove an Important Point.  You can tell from the title alone you are not reading the work of a great intellect.

In any case, what is the point she is making that is so important?  Could it be that people in general have an abysmal knowledge of anatomy only slightly worse than geography?  If you thought that you would be wrong.  Our dyspeptic writer’s main point is the following:

“Clearly, and unfortunately, the average male doesn’t know the first thing about a woman’s body, and some are suffering the very real negative consequences of this ignorance. Need proof? In 2014 alone, approximately 75% of anti-choice bills — laws that legislate only a woman’s autonomy — were sponsored by men.”

Did you get that?  Do you follow her point? Lack of knowledge in matters of fact map into the domain of ethics.  So if I only understood the structure of the highway system I wouldn’t be trying to pass laws against drunk driving.  Let’s change her quote around and shift into the new context.

“Clearly, and unfortunately, the average person doesn’t know the first thing about our highways and roads, and some are suffering the very real negative consequences of this ignorance. Need proof? In 2014 alone, approximately 75% of drunk driving bills — laws that legislate only our personal autonomy — were sponsored by people ignorant of our roads.”

Would that be a rigorous argument against drunk driving?  Of course not because it disregards the potential harm of drunk drivers who lose control of their vehicle.  No amount of knowledge of our highway system or width of the roads can change or will change that.  The legislature doesn’t want you driving drunk because you may kill or injure someone.  In the same way, deep knowledge of a women’s vagina does not change the fact that an abortion takes life.  Your humanity is not determined by your state of development or your location.  Moral reasoning depends on matters of what one should or shouldn’t do not simple matters of fact.

Instead of concerning herself with men’s lack of knowledge of female anatomy perhaps she could learn basic morality.  There is a principled, logical, non-religious argument against abortion on demand that requires minimal knowledge of women’s reproductive organs. It is concerned with the nature of the thing to be killed and not the composition and structure of its carrier.

Here Comes Polygamy

We have a court decision in Utah that throws out the ban on polygamous cohabitation (but not bigamy that is a result of deception) based on the similar court case wherein the Supreme Court stated that it was unconstitutional for a federal law to define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman.  Slippery slope arguments against redefining marriage appear to be born out.  Slippery slope arguments are frequently considered a logical fallacy but not always.  Marriage will come to mean whatever someone says it means going forward and therefore meaningless.

The toleration of polygamy is a terrible idea.   Long term it will lead to many males being social outcasts and high status males acquiring “harems”.  History has shown polygamous societies to be unstable. The building of civilization is slow but collapse comes quickly.

Road to Oblivion: Marine Edition

It is not surprising that the Marine Corps are postponing the 3 pull-up minimum for female recruits.  This is in keeping with Wright’s Unreality Principle.

The three pullups is already the minimum required for all male Marines. Now the Marine Corps has postponed the plan, and that’s raising questions about whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat, which they’ll be allowed to do beginning in 2016.

The fact is women can work their way up to 10 pullups by training.  If three is the minimum it should be the minimum.  There should be no difference in standards for men and women for any job in the military period.

They said they delayed the pullup requirement to avoid losing not only recruits but also current female Marines who can’t pass the test.

Making your affirmative action numbers is a higher value than physical standards.  What next will they change their motto?  It makes me grind my teeth to think they will be putting women into combat and placing other men’s lives at risk for their social experiments.  I can predict with 100% accuracy that they will propagandize the performance of women in combat the way they have for early female fighter pilots who came in under lower standards.  Realize that flying a jet requires less physical strength than ground combat (at least until you lose hydraulics or your engine) and with respect to flying women have advantages over men, e.g., able to withstand higher g forces.

When I was in, there were still quite a few Vietnam vets on active duty.  In situations of close quarters combat, the smaller Vietnamese men were no match for the bigger, stronger, faster, Americans.   We should not sacrifice combat effectiveness for career enhancement.

Malleability of Sexual Orientation

I wrote a while back in a speculative post on the nature of human sexuality. I used the metaphor of language.  You could always learn to speak other languages but your first would always be latent.  This metaphor matched what I witnessed growing up.   Two different friends were straight, bi-sexual, then became exclusively gay.  It was a slow process spanning about eight years each.  When I wrote that post I had no idea that research had been done.

The University of North Carolina’s National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health surveyed 10,000 teenagers and found that the vast majority of sixteen-year olds who reported only same-sex sexual attractions reported only opposite-sex sexual attractions one year later.*

It is not surprising.  I think that over time one’s sexual identity becomes tightly intertwined with their self-image and becomes difficult to alter — difficult but not impossible if one so desires.