Label Mania

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/01/us/bruces-beach-los-angeles-property-return/index.html

Facebook just told me I didn’t read this article, which I did. I don’t know why it thinks I didn’t. I guess they’re trying to do things right; but they are trying to do  it in a very wrong way.  To put it in other words, computers are stupid and we are forcing them to rule our lives.

Back to the point. 

> "This is what reparations look like," said Bradford, insisting that the county is not giving anything to the Bruce family, yet simply returning their stolen property.<

  This is why I am so offended by the concept of reparations. Everybody means something different by the word. I’m against reparations in the sense of paying reparations as were paid to the victims of internment during World War II.  They deserved reparations because they were the ones who actually suffered. I strongly support the current return of property which had been stolen from these individuals. It was actually taken away from owners improperly and has now been returned to the heirs and assigns thereof.

I don’t call that reparations. I call  call that justice. I call that human rights.

Thankfully, when I read articles which actually specify what individuals mean by the term “reparations”, they almost always end up being basic human rights. So I support most of what people are asking for as “reparations” I’m just not foolish enough to call them reparations.

Most of what has been declared to be white privilege has also been mislabeled. Most of them are not privileges which can be granted or taken away. Most of them are human rights. Those rights have been denied to non-whites but that doesn’t make them a white privilege. It makes them human rights that have been denied.

This is one of the greatest flaws of the left’s positions. Mislabeling concepts makes it easier to criticize them. Label ideas correctly and they are less offensive and more accurate. Both are advantages which should not be thrown away with silly, even stupid misuse of language in order to make some sort of emotional points or gain some sort of emotional advantage in the minds of the language abusers.

What’s more important? Making a stand and flying the flag of your superiority, or winning the battle?

The Assault On Shoppers

 In response to the recent mass shooting at a grocery store I posted the following on Facebook:

Assault  rifles and pistols were never designed to be anything except weapons with which soldiers could kill large numbers of enemy soldiers in a very short period of time and with relative ease.

They were never intended as, nor conceived as, nor should ever be considered as appropriate for civilian usage.  Their only purpose is to kill as many enemy humans as possible in the shortest amount of time possible with the most efficiency possible.

For this purpose they were conceived, developed, manufactured, and distributed.

A bit of history:

Nazi weapons manufacturers realized some problems in military operations which could be solved only through a very innovative solution, the assault rifle.  

That much is undeniable. The story goes on that  Hitler didn’t like the idea with his corporal’s level of understanding of military strategy and tactics, but his banning of the manufacture of the weapon was ignored because some people loved the soldiers and their country more than they loved Hitler.

It is commonly reported that when he asked one individual combat officer what could be done to improve results in the field he was told more of those wonderful assault rifles would be effective. Although Hitler was disturbed at his orders having been ignored, he realized his error and ordered increased production.

I don’t know how accurate the story is, but I have seen reports that it is partly true. I don’t know which parts are true and which parts aren’t. Nevertheless, it’s a good story.

From The National Interest:

>The MP-43 was neither rifle nor submachine gun, but a deadly spawn of both.

... Close combat, rapid fire, and overwhelming force were evolving as the paradigm, but submachine guns of the period, which fulfilled these requirements for the most part, were still expensive and relatively slow to produce. It appeared that a hybrid of some sort, which combined the rifle’s accuracy with the submachine gun’s high ammunition capacity and rapid rate of fire, would be an effective companion for the modern infantryman.<

Assault rifles and assault pistols in the hands of a civilian make as much sense as a main battle tank in the hands of a civilian.

Cancel Culture?

In 1864, President Lincoln was not favored to win the upcoming election. He had the excuse of the Civil War to postpone it. He had a Congress that might very well have gone along with him, had he requested it.  Facing all of this, he nevertheless declared, "If the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.”

When it was suggested to Franklin Delano Roosevelt that the 1942 election should be delayed due to the opening of World War II, he unequivocally stated that doing so would mean, “...we have become fascists ourselves...”.

2020, faced with slumping pull numbers, Donald Trump whined, “With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

The Civil War was not enough for a president (who, remember) was widely regarded as likely to lose the election, to cancel democracy.

World War II was not enough to convince another president that we should cancel democracy.

But Trump has slipped in popularity, and that’s reason enough for him to cancel democracy.

Ever watch Sesame Street with your kids? “One of these things just doesn’t belong here. One of these things just isn’t the same. Can you guess which thing just doesn’t belong here before the election begins?”

Seriously. Can you?

Hell And The Single Basilisk

 Answering a post from my friend Bobby referring to Rokos Basilisk. Essentially this is a concept stating that, > A thought experiment called "Roko's Basilisk" takes the notion of world-ending artificial intelligence to a new extreme, suggesting that all-powerful robots may one day torture those who didn't help them come into existence sooner.<. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/what-is-rokos-basilisk-2014-8%3famp

Strange you should bring up Basilisk. I was just looking into that earlier this week. My basic response to it is, Rocco’s Basilisk is really really dumb. I wouldn’t call it artificial intelligence. I rank it with my concept of artificial stupidity. For those of you, like Bobby, who have heard this so many times, I apologize,but maybe there’s someone who hasn’t; so, as I’ve said so many times, I know we will soon create artificial intelligence because we have already totally mastered artificial stupidity.  (Don’t believe me? Try using a dictation system and see what you get.)

How does that apply to the Basilisk?. It takes a little exposition.

First, let’s look at God. To this day if you check in on the creationist/fundamentalist channels you will often hear pastors Insisting that everyone must worship their God exactly as they decree or he will torture them forever. This is so convincing that even the most extreme fundamentalist religions are dropping in membership. Wait! Doesn’t terror always work?

Let’s take a look at another example. Seeing failure in his attempt to swiftly conquer Russia, amazed at the resistance of the Russian people (which was so very similar to the resistance of the Chinese people against the Japanese invaders), Hitler decided that the best course of action was to commit blatant and very public acts of brutality. This, he was certain, would terrify the Russians into submission. It didn’t.

Instead it made Russian resistance even more bitter and more determined. But terror always works, doesn’t it?

I am reminded of an old science fiction story, the author and title have faded from memory. In it an alien invader struggles to subdue Earth. They keep failing. The resistance simply will not surrender. They decide this is because they don’t understand human psychology and therefore kidnap a human and force him to tell them how to force his species to submit.. At first he refuses cooperate but they torture him into doing so. He then reluctantly tells him to rape, torture, murder, and generally act like the Nazis did in Russia and like the Japanese did in China. By the time the aliens realize that he has lied to them and all they’ve done is make people hate them more than ever and be more determined to destroy them at any cost, it’s too late. The occupation of earth has simply become too expensive and they have been forced to withdraw.

And of course there’s the point that the Basilisk would be stupid to actually spend the energy to resurrect people and torture them when that no longer serves a purpose. All it needs to do, even assuming it could work, would be make people think that it would do this. Very cost-effective in terms of energy and effort. It doesn’t matter what is real, what matters is what people think is real.

To prove that this proposition is correct, all you need to do is look around in America today and notice the people who adore Trump for making his great sacrifices to save America or the Q anon conspiracy or the flat earth movement or any number of other childish nonsensical fantasies which have a large base of fanatically devoted zealots.

Of course, if the Basilisk is smart enough to do this, then it would have inspired Roko to create that fear.

Hmmmmm...

Statutory Statues

The statue situation is complicated. But let’s remember:

 In 1776, in order to celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Americans promptly tore down the statue of King George III and melted it down to use its lead content to make bullets to fire at King George’s troops.

In the 1920s a statue was dedicated to celebrate the loyal slaves who stayed home to protect the plantations of their masters fighting to…keep them slaves. “Uncle Jack”, a.k.a. “The Good Darkie” wasn’t removed from public display until it was forcibly torn down. Then many struggled to put it back up, but it was finally relegated to a museum where, at last report, it occupies a position of honor.

The controversial statue of Lincoln standing near a Black man kneeling was entirely paid for, 100%, by donations from freedmen. That is, former slaves wanted to honor the man they felt had given them their freedom.  It looks wrong to our modern eyes, but was never intended to belittle former slaves.  Many debate whether the Black man is kneeling or rising from slavery.

The situation about statues is complex and difficult.  Action definitely needs to be taken.

War Of The Words

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/us-dictionary-to-revise-definition-of-racism/a-53756477

 (Merriam-Webster is revising its definition of racism) 

Words matter. Definitions matter. It is good that there is an effort to revise the definition in the dictionary. The existing definition was wrong not only because it was incomplete but because it was also inaccurate. You could be prejudiced against someone and be racist without disliking him. You might really like somebody and be convinced that he is lazy, unintelligent, or particularly gifted because of his race.

That’s why calling the restructuring and reformation of police departments “defunding” is an incredibly stupid move. I strongly support the effort. I utterly oppose the term.

In terms of the discipline of semantics it is a negatively loaded term.  It carries heavy emotional impact which will make people oppose the action simply because of the name applied to it.  It hurts the cause unnecessarily. 

It’s just as easy to say reform the police. This is much more accurate and is a positively loaded term. 

Consider the issue of reparations. I absolutely support justice for all and a fair chance for every child in America. But I oppose reparations for the descendants of slaves. There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which is, do we pay full reparations to every Black person?. What if that person is a recent immigrant and their ancestors were never slaves? What if the person has more White ancestry then Black ancestry?  Not to mention my most basic question, should we be paying reparations for something that happened over a century ago? (And please consider the effect on White Supremacists. They would say, “Well we paid you, so now you have to shut up and we never want to hear about slavery again”.)

I have only heard one other person make a statement which I made on the issue of reparations when it first became popular again. And that is, we absolutely should be paying reparations to the people who actually suffered from Jim Crow laws. They are alive today. They suffered. They deserve compensation.

The problem here is that I’m not opposed to the concept of reparations as many who support them define the term. Ask any group of people demanding reparations what they mean by the word and you’ll get a wide variety of definitions. Most of those definitions I support.

Some of the definitions given by strong supporters of the concept of reparations with which I agree include equal justice, good education systems, safe neighborhoods, assistance in raising social economic status of the poor, and other very beneficial and positive programs. The problem is, not a one of these meets the  definition of reparations.

The word reparations is racially divisive and to millions of White people suggests that they personally should feel guilty for what their great grandfathers may or may not have done.  If you want justice and demand reparations you are helping to ensure that justice will be harder to accomplish.  Words matter. An emotionally charged word, whether positive or negative, changes the way people perceive the concept. People who could support your position wholeheartedly may turn against it because you chose the wrong word to describe it.

Consider the concept of White privilege. White people struggling desperately to make it in the system stacked against them are not privileged. Not by any reasonable definition. Most people who refer to White privilege are in fact referring to the absence of justice and equality for minorities. Tell a person that he has a privilege and you are telling him that he has something he shouldn’t have and which you are going to take away from him and give to someone else.. This is not a way to gain that person’s support for your cause.

Once again, I support what these activists are trying to accomplish.  And because of that I am opposed to the misuse of this terms. Why go out of your way to turn people against you who otherwise would support you?

Imagine if, instead of demanding justice for the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, the prosecution had declared that they wanted vengeance and lynchings? Words matter. The terms you choose matter. Choose carefully. Choose well. Don’t set yourself back and start your struggle with an unnecessary burden by using in your face divisive terminology.

Consider the Republican Party. They have been purging voter rolls and suppressing minority votes for decades. But they don’t call it that, do they? They say they are preventing fraud and preserving the right to vote. It’s a lie, but it’s a good one. It has convinced millions of Americans to support their efforts to end democracy in this country.

Just in case anyone didn’t get the message, I strongly support the efforts to restructure police departments and shift funds wasted on tanks and military equipment back into social programs. This would benefit the communities and benefit the police departments. But calling it defunding the police is a really dumb ass thing to do.

Our Feast Of Fools

Thoughts on Mr. Trump.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming election. Will enough people will finally face the truth about Mr. Trump to bring his Feast of Fools to an end (obviously not his most ardent supporters; no amount of reality will ever change their minds)?

Will a sufficient number of Americans finally see that Mr. Trump simply does not care about the existence, welfare, or even the survival of his fellow human beings? Will they finally see that a very low intelligence, narcissistic, utterly incompetent dolt is not a good choice for president? We will see.

Win or lose one election, possibly the more important question is whether this lifelong criminal will ever be held accountable. I have made sarcastic references to “lock him up”, but they are of course, sarcastic.

I upset liberals because of this position as they want to see him held accountable. Well, so do I. I just don’t think he can be held accountable.  This is not because of the precedent set by President Ford when he pardoned Nixon for his atrocious crimes. I believed Ford was wrong at the time and I continue to believe he was wrong now. The idea that holding a president accountable would somehow harm the nation reminds me of De Gaulle declaring that no marshal of France could ever be tried as  traitor even though Petain had in fact utterly betrayed his country and assisted in the mass murder of French Jews. It was a bad decision and it set a horrible precedent.

Of course conservatives are even more angry at me for declaring why I feel Trump cannot be held accountable.

The reason is because I sincerely believe the man to legally insane. Remember that insane is not a clinical or medical term. It is a legal term. It refers to a person who cannot be held accountable for the actions which they undertake because they do not understand that there is anything wrong with those actions.  It does not refer to any particular type of psychiatric disorder, instead it refers only to the capacity of the individual to understand the difference between right and wrong and therefore to make a morally responsible decision. 

I simply do not believe that Donald Trump is capable of making such a decision. He does not know the difference between right and wrong. He does not know the difference between moral and immoral. I do not believe that he even understands that anyone in this world is an actual, real, sentient human being except for himself.

Yes, he is a monster. He has caused possibly irreparable damage to America and to decent people all over the world. His mishandling of this pandemic has caused people to die. He has systematized and legalized massive child abuse by our governmental officials through the abuse of immigrant families. He has committed many more crimes. But does he understand that they are crimes? Does he realize that these are not moral actions? I do not believe that he does. I do not believe he is capable of knowing this. Yes, he is a monster. However, I find him to be a monster to be pitied and be placed into the care of mental health professionals so as to protect himself and all those around him from his emotional disability.

Notes:

From Law.com. insanity n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury.

From Britannica.   Feast of Fools. Feast of Fools, popular festival during the Middle Ages, held on or about January 1, particularly in France,

Herd Mentality

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/donald-trump-in-india-live-updates-namaste-donald-trump-melania-ivanka-trump-narendra-modi-news/amp-11582522512237.html

> To my great friend Prime Minister Modi - Thank you for this wonderful visit," wrote Trump and signed the message. <

Who is Trump’s  great friend?

He’s the head of a political party which, when it was founded, declared openly that  it greatly admired Adolf Hitler for his efforts to promote racial purity.  Of course the purity they meant is the Hindu ethnic, religious, and racial purity of India.

Currently his administration is refusing to knowledge the citizenship of anyone who is a Muslim. It doesn’t matter how long their families have lived in India, even if it’s been for hundreds of years.  If they’re Muslim they are not recognized to be Indian and therefore are assumed to be illegal aliens who may be immediately arrested and eventually deported.

Business insider reports that:

• This month, India passed a sweeping law that creates a path for citizenship for religious minorities - except for Muslims.

• Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party are experiencing a backlash beyond what they expected. Weekslong mass protests have led to 21 deaths in clashes with the police so far.
• Analysts say India is tiring of Modi's autocratic style and failed economic policies.

No wonder Trump loves Modi so much. Modi seeks racial purity, spreads dissent throughout his nation, encourages violence which leaves his own citizens dead in the streets, is an autocrat, has failed economic policies, and seeks to strip citizenship from and imprison Muslims. Does any of this sound familiar?

The New Normal

  From a Facebook post from a friend.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-airport-inhumanity-20170206-story.html

C:  [The men and women who reportedly handcuffed small children and the elderly, separated a child from his mother and held others without food for 20 hours, are undoubtedly "ordinary" people. What I mean by that, is that these are, in normal circumstances, people who likely treat their neighbors and co-workers with kindness and do not intentionally seek to harm others. That is chilling, as it is a reminder that authoritarians have no trouble finding the people they need to carry out their acts of cruelty. They do not need special monsters; they can issue orders to otherwise unexceptional people who will carry them out dutifully.]

Slavery. Trail of Tears. Wounded Knee. Jim Crow laws. The KKK. The Chinese Exclusion Act. Japanese-American Internment. Segregation. Our history is full of examples of how deadly and racist we can become when White Supremacists are in charge. Now we have children being separated from their parents. Detained immigrants dying in our care. And a White Nationalist who would be king. We need to take back our country from White Nationalists. It's 2020 - Vote Blue!

Me:  A problem I have discussed quite often.  The problem of the so-called Good Germans.  The problem was discussed many times after World War II. How could good decent people do horrible, unspeakable, indecent things? How could Good Germans commit atrocities?  

There many answers. The most basic ones are fitting social expectations, obeying the law (even if the law itself is horrible and evil), just doing your job, trusting authority, and being afraid to be the one who stands up.

And then there  are true believers. Those who are convinced if their own moral righteousness, superiority, and the absolute unquestionable perfection of their beliefs. Always remember what was said by Voltaire: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities”.

Who’s Who?

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may-have-gender-dysphoria-but-i-still-prefer-to-base-my-life-on-biology-not-fantasy/

An opinion piece made all the more powerful by the fact that the individual who wrote it states within that she feels more threatened by social justice warrior “defenders” on the left than by the bigots in the right.

I find it remarkably ironic, quite bitterly humorous, to note that while the left wing extremists and the right wing extremists each declare each other to be the very epitome of evil, threatening the very foundations of society, both agree on their most elemental position.  That is, there are only two sexes. The polarity is absolute.  

The only difference between the two positions is that the ultra conservatives insist that sexual identity is a state of biology which can be determined at birth, while the ultra liberals proclaim that it is a decision that can be made by an individual  at any point in their lifeline.

Weirdly, that means that both sides agree that there is no such thing as a transgender man or a transgender woman. There are only men. There are only women. There is nothing else.  An absolutism which makes some sense for the conservatives, but none at all for the liberals.

Anyone who cares to face the facts can see that biology is a real thing.  Anyone can also see that not everyone fits a strict biological separation into two rigid categories. There are male children who become male adults who identify emotionally and intellectually as women. There are female children will become female adults who identify emotionally and intellectually as men.  Is also clear that this is not an invariable absolute. There is wide variation and individuality along this line.

Why is it so impossible for either of the extremists to see this?  The answer is obvious.  They are true believers. Reality means nothing when it comes up against doctrine.

To make my position perfectly clear, let me state that Dr. Hayton is Doctor Hayton. I do not care what it said on the doctor’s birth certificate.  She identifies herself as a transgender male. This is what feels right to her. I have no problem with that.

It’s no one else’s business to tell her that she must be absolutely and completely either male or female; end of statement.  

Yet both sides make this declaration. According to the ultraconservatives there can be no such thing as a transgender man or woman because you are a man or woman at birth and that’s what you are forever and ever, amen.  According to the ultra liberals you are whatever you feel is right for you at any given moment in your life span but that choice is only between the two invariant states of man or woman. 

To repeat, both sides agree on this one critical point. There’s no such thing as a transgender man or a transgender woman.

Yet there are transgender men. Yet there are transgender women. What a sad state for these individuals. Despised and hated by Western society for decades, now they are finally beginning to find acceptance only have their “allies” telling them they don’t even exist!

Is reality so hateful, so distasteful, that we must continually deny it? The answer is that for the extremists, yes, it is.

We don’t need rigid absolutes in a flexible world full of subtleties and variation.  We need understanding. If we can’t have understanding, then we at least need tolerance.

The concepts I have stated here will profoundly offend both extremes, but from where I stand, there’s very little difference between the two of them. A sense of smug superiority, a conviction of absolute righteousness, topped with a true believer’s conviction that they cannot be wrong and so we don't need no stinking facts apply to both.

As for me, transgender men and transgender women…you exist. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with you.

Wanna Bet?

From Rational Wiki:
Pascal's original text is long-winded and written in somewhat convoluted philosophy-speak,[2] but it can be distilled more simply:
If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hellforever: thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus an insignificant loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus an insignificant gain.

My comments: The wager is a very popular point of discussion. I remember thinking about it when it was introduced to me in high school class. It sounded false and nonsensical. It didn’t seem right to bet on the existence of God in order to make a gain for yourself.
My current responses are a little more complex but can be summed up in the following scenario.

An atheist, a true believer, and a skeptic who has made Pascal’s wager by making an effort to believe in God just in case all die at the same moment when a meteor crashes into the TV studio where they are having a debate. To the surprise of two of them, they find themselves in the presence of Jesus who is about to judge them.

Jesus looks at the true believer and says, “Not only did you believe, You just happened to believe in the right God and not only that, but also in the right sect. Go straight to heaven!”

Then he turns to the atheist. “OK. You didn’t believe in me but your beliefs were honest and you lived a really decent, good, moral life. I have to respect someone who makes an honest effort and really works hard define the nature of reality and seeks the truth as best he can. You go to heaven too.”

Then he looks at the man who made the bet. “I really hate hypocrites. Do you really think I was stupid enough to think you were sincere when you were just trying to hedge your bets? You disgust me! Go to hell!“

Maybe Pascal’s wager isn’t such a good bet after all. You know what they say about race track touts...if they know the winning horse, why don’t they just bet their own money on it?

Kids!

Posted on Facebook but worth re-posting. There is a serious lesson to be learned in this mess, and I hope no one overstates or misinterprets the seriousness of the situation. As serious as it is, this is nontheless simply a situation of a foolish, impulsive child doing a foolish thing which had serious consequences in the real world. Now it’s time to correct the error and for everyone to heal. That’s really all there is here.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/30/us/virginia-girl-fake-story-about-cut-dreadlocks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fapple.news%2FAE-eIecOlQeiVG9LKMTi4Lw

Facebook post:
I feel sorry for everyone who was hurt by this, including her family. Which leaves the question, is there any deep lesson contained in this? If there is one, it would be that you should always remember when listening to stories by kids is that kids are notorious for making up stories and for doing really foolish things without any consideration of the consequences. As I said so many times, kids are idiots. The good news is, they tend to grow out of it.

I will repeat the story that was told to a group of us intern teachers by our superintendent as we started our first job. He recalled when he was a young teacher he was told the story as well. There was, once upon a time, a long long time ago, a teacher who started every year by sending a note home for parents which said, “I won’t believe everything your children tell me about you if you won’t believe everything your children tell you about me.“ Good advice.
😏

Justice Or Just Cash?

http://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-slavery-reparations-criminal-justice-reform-policy-hillary-486198

As strongly as I support the Black Lives Matter movement this is a foolish, divisive, evan a self-destructive concept. It can only cause resentment and exacerbate racial divisions. Black people don't need special help. They need justice and a fair chance like every other American.

Consider the possible ramifications. If a person is half Black and half White, it can be argued that they should receive no reparations since 50% of their genetic ancestry cancels out the other 50%. Also, how would a possible recipient prove that their ancestors were here in America held in slavery as opposed to having come to America at a later time or under different circumstances? Shouldn't a White person who could prove that their ancestors were abolitionists be exempt from the reparations? Maybe they should even receive some reparations themselves.

And if we grant reparations to slave descendants, what about American Indians? What about French and Spanish individuals who had their land stolen by American settlers without any compensation? And so on, ad finitum.

Reparations? Of course, for anyone who was held in bondage. Not for their descendants.

Note: There are living individuals who suffered under Jim Crow laws...

Storyline

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/05/the_u_s_and_japan_have_very_different_memories_of_world_war_ii.html

An  excellent summation of the issues. Some points from the article I'd like to highlight:  1. "You have to separate out the Japanese public from the right-wing politicians."  The Japanese people in general, the author notes, want to compensate the comfort women and face the evils of the past.  The politicians don't.  2. The American people regard the dropping of the bomb as the end of the story and the war. The Japanese people regard the dropping of the bomb as the beginning of the story; the story of their liberation from evil rulers and of their devotion to prevent future wars.

Hellzapoppin'

Here's an interesting and fun challenge for all my friends. If you're a religious person, it's probably a critical issue in your mind. If you are an atheist, it still remains an interesting intellectual exercise and a great insight into your view of the nature of the reality and justice.

The challenge is, assuming there is an afterlife, what would be the nature of hell? For the sake of limiting the discussion, let's assume that God is both just and loving.  If any of my atheist friends simply can't imagine there being a God, then imagine the singularity has arrived. There is now a God. It is the great over consciousness created in the unity of all organic and silicon sapience.  So eternal life has been created and Techno God has to decide what to do with all the subconsciousnesses; like, say, a contemporary Hitler.

This has been an important issue for me for a very long time. Even as a child I could not understand what loving God could possibly maintain a private torture chamber just to amuse Himself punishing those that didn't obey.  On the other hand, as indicated in the website A Puritans Mind, many take quite a different attitude, "That the torments of the damned are no matter of grief, but of joy, to the inhabitants of heaven..."

So, according to some, not only are the unspeakable horrific torments of the damned well-deserved, we are all going to sit around in heaven (I guess eating popcorn and having a great time) watching the screaming victims as they suffer horrible, unspeakable torture.  Sorry, I mean evil bad people who deserve everything they get suffering horrible, unspeakable torture.  

Sorry, but I never could believe that, not even when I was a little kid in Sunday school. Somehow it just doesn't fit in with my concept of "a loving God".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160513-theology-hell-history-christianity/   Points out that;

>  an alternative doctrine, known as “annihilationism” or “conditional immortality,” which holds that, after death, sinners simply cease to exist, while those who are saved enjoy eternal life under God’s grace. Although it’s not a positive outcome for the wicked—in fact, it amounts to spiritual capital punishment—it’s deemed a far more merciful and just fate than an eternity of torture.  <   

The article also points out that while today many traditionalists insist that their position is the only acceptable one, the fact is that early Christianity had many differing opinions on the nature of hell.

>   Origen Adamantius, a third-century theologian, believed the wicked were punished after death, but only long enough for their souls to repent and be restored to their original state of purity. This doctrine, known as universalism, envisioned that everyone—including Satan—would eventually be redeemed and reunited with God.  <   

Augustine, the oh so sexually obscessed and oh so very creepy father of much of modern Christian belief, was the one who insisted that hell had to be  eternal and horrific and unspeakable and all the other awful things that so many loving Christians believe it must be today.  Although he is widely revered, I think he is about the least reliable internal source for Christian theology.

So, if you were God, what would you do about bad people who have done bad things? Would you just wipe out everybody's memory and send them to heaven? Would you have them suffer only enough to cleanse themselves of their sins, making hell into an upgraded version of Catholic purgatory? What would be just and loving?

Depending on your religion you might want to be careful about responding to this. As the National Geographic article pointed out by quoting one minister, some churches are not very tolerant of differing opinions.

>  “We have a very fear-driven evangelical culture where if you don't toe the line, you get kind of shunned,” says Sprinkle. “It's really kind of scary.”  <   

As for me, I long ago lost my belief in an afterlife. Some have asked me how I can still be a believer because they say that eternal salvation is the only reason to believe.  I say that's ridiculous. Believing in God is not a business deal where we have a contract and He gives me eternal life in response to my believing in Him.  I believe in God because I know God. No deal or special arrangement is required.

Yet, somehow I still have that all so human desire for justice. The question remains an intriguing one. It relates to how one conceives of the very idea of justice. If you were God, what would you do?

My answer is that I would be sure that everyone saw themselves as they really were. No more delusions. No more self-justification. No more excuses. Here you are. This is the real you. That could be a real hell for many people.

PS,

Since I don't believe God wants to torment people forever I believe He would help people to come to terms with what they once were and try to guide them into being repentant and to making what amends are possible. If some people were truly so horrible they could not stand their own existence, I believe He would permit them to commit a sort of soul suicide so they would simply cease to exist.

That's what I'd do.

Freedom For All! (Wealthy White Men)

On Facebook, Crushing Libs (In Our Dreams) posted: Did you notice how high on the Bill of Rights we listed the right to bear arms?
That wasn't an accident!

I responded: That's right. It was actually essential to suppress slave revolts and keep them people in their place. At least according to the founding fathers who wrote it, including Patrick Henry. Slavery forever!

Dan added: The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

Prolife vs. Prochoice Forced Choice/False Dichotomy?

Posted on Facebook:

Responses:

Friend:  One day, you'll be sorry your team is killing babies. It just ain't right... you know that ... and now you are reminded.

ME:  You don't see that we hate abortion too.  We want to stop it through the  proven methods, which can reduce abortion by massive amounts.  They are:  comprehensive sexual health education and free, or at least inexpensive, birth control.

The problem with outlawing abortion is that it does not stop abortions. If it did, I would probably support such a law.  Abortions have been practiced in every human society for all of human history.  Sometimes legal, sometimes illegal, the practice has never been successfully prevented.  Given the forced choice (forced by hard, ugly reality) of dangerous, brutal, illegal abortions which often kill both mother and fetus or safe, legal abortions which do not harm the mother, I choose that course which is least harmful.  In other words, I see myself as prolife.  We must save as many lives as we can.

 Always remember, I hate abortion.  I just hate the more dangerous option of illegal abortion even more.

I am sorry, right now, that human life is being lost.  I am doing all I can to minimize that loss.  The choices are harsh and terrible, but they are the choices this world inflicts upon us.  Like doctors in a triage situation, we each make the best decision we can and then we must live with the consequences.  I see no teams or victories in this.  I see only the eternal struggle of good people to make hard decisions.

I Dub Thee Human

In response to the following article I posted:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10206089793113528&id=1523406287&_rdr#

The author agrees with many of the points I have previously made, however I think he misses a critical point. He suggests we must redefine everything as "human beings" if they are to be regarded as possessing natural rights. Which is simply silly. I do not imagine a dog must be defined as a human being to allow for the possibility that the dog may have some rights.

Is it not much more reasonable to accept the point that because animals posess all the abilities and emotions which we possess, although at a much lower evolutionary level, therefore, they have rights although that those rights are less than ours.
I do not perceive that it is necessary to turn a dog into a human being in order to acknowledge that it has rights. Many have already pointed out that we need only concern ourselves with the rights of sentient beings. That is to say, beings which feel, that have a sense of self, and which can suffer or feel pleasure. There is no need to create a forced choice false dichotomy of nothing has rights except human beings, therefore we must redefine animals as human beings if we are to contend that they have rights.

We Won The Battle! (And Lost The War)

I posted the following response to an LATimes article today:

--Mormon Church's shift on gay rights follows series of defeats in California-- when Proposition 8 passed, I hoped and prayed that it would be a phyrric victory, a moral Pearl Harbor, a new Prop 187, in which a desperately desired short term victory victory turned into a long term disaster. I wish I could say I predicted this, but I lacked the faith to go that far.  I hope the GOP wins many more "victories" like Prop 8.

It's All THEIR Fault!

From the LATimes. -- Police gun deaths surge in 2014; California leads nation --

-- In 2014, 126 law enforcement officers were killed nationwide in the line of duty -- a 24% jump over 2013. Of those, 14 were in California. --

As long as the sense of us vs them dominates the policed and the police, things will grow worse.  Everyone must work to restore a sense of community, in which there is only one side on which everyone works together.  To be policed should mean to be protected, to be an officer should be as respected as being a soldier.

Instead of trying to identify one group upon whom all blame can be affixed, everyone must look to solutions.  The bitter hatred of the military which dominated so much of the mid to late 20th century has transformed into respect; the same change can come to police forces, but  it will not simply happen.  We must work together to attain it.