Posts Tagged ‘Rape’

Of Virtue and Vice

Posted by Troy on 14th November 2017 in Current Events, Human Nature

In light of the multitude of sexual scandals mounting in Hollywood and DC, with more and more no doubt in sight, I think of CS Lewis and his discussion of virtues and sins.  How every sin is merely a perversion of something good that God has given us.  Sex, in particular in this case, being a good between husband and wife.  Or at the very least (not in CS Lewis’ book, but by modern convention) between two willing parties.  In particular, I look at Hollywood.  They are so willing to pass judgement on the rest of us.  They are so willing to decry the plight of women.  Meanwhile, the constantly peddle negative stereotypes for women.  They objectify women.  They frequently portray women as nothing more than sex objects at worst or a hollow love interest, a mere plot device.  Jane Fonda stood up to the entire United States by giving aid and comfort to our enemies…but chickened out when it came to standing up to Harvey Weinstein.  Same thing for Jon Stewart and C.K. Louis.  These people all knew that was going on, and yet they said nothing.  Why?  Simple… cowardice.  In particular, financial cowardice.  They were afraid that they would wind up on a blacklist.  That they wouldn’t get parts.  Far better to sacrifice girl after girl to the casting couch.  What’s sad is these girls went on to be big stars.  And rather than stand up and demand justice, to show what went on, instead they swallowed Hollywood’s line.  They condemned the entire nation for a host of sins that Hollywood declared, meanwhile giving tacit approval to the sick practices that went on and on.  Letting new girls suffer the same disgusting treatment that was inflicted upon them, like some sort of disgusting hazing ritual.  “You can star in a movie, but first you have to have sex with Harvey.”  And why?  For a little bit of money.  Was it vanity that caused them to turn their backs on the side of good?  The desire to be liked being more important than anything else?  Or was it mere greed?  Was it just dollars?  Turning them into pimps and prostitutes, mere actors in a modern day human trafficking drama?

C.S. Lewis said, “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of very virtue at the testing point.”  The testing point came to them, and they failed.  They were cowards.

Let’s contrast this to Buddy Ebsen.  During the depression, an office executive told him “Ebsen, in order to give you the parts you deserve, we must own you.”  He replied, “I’ll tell you what kind of fool I am, Mr. Mayer, I can’t be owned.”  He quit.  He turned down a lucrative job just on the principal that he wouldn’t be owned, probably more of a splitting of hairs and wordplay–not as though he would have actually been a slave and been owned by someone.  But the idea of being owned, in any sense, disgusted him to the point that he quit.  He struggled because of this decision.  It would have been far easier for him to just sign the paper, sell himself over to the studio, but he didn’t.  Meanwhile, these Hollywood people, some of them who hold themselves out as feminists, watch as women were abused, harassed, or even raped, and didn’t say a word.  In some cases, these so called feminists were the ones assaulting these women.

Cowards.

Long Live the Constitution.

Fake Libertarian Ron Paul and Abortion

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2012 in Political

Lawrence O’Donnell has called Ron Paul, the most famous Libertarian in America (with the possible exclusion of Clint Eastwood), a false Libertarian because Ron Paul does not believe in abortion.  Last time I checked, Ron Paul’s stance is that abortion laws should be left up to the states to determine.  However, let me dissect O’Donnell’s arguement.

The first thing I would like to discuss is that it would appear as though, to be a Libertarian, one must live an chaotic (or anarchist if you prefer) existence devoid of any right or wrong.  A Libertarian doesn’t think the government should be making decisions on morality.  This is the sphere of the populace and churches, not of government.  Instead, Libertarians believe that governments should be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens against internal and external threats.  This is the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Most of the Federal powers were intended to cover dealings with foreign nations and matters which concerned more than one state.  The states themselves were meant to go about making their own laws.  In fact, this almost makes a market place for states in which they must compete.  If people want gay marriage, they will move to Massachusetts.  If they want no income taxes, they will move to Texas.  It also would prevent the nation from being dragged under by debt.  A poorly managed state can go bankrupt without destroying the country…but the same cannot be said if the country itself goes broke.

A common misconception is that Libertarians are against any government and any laws.  As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not true.  Libertarians believe that the government is set into place to safeguard individuals rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  How then does the Libertarian, Ron Paul, reconcile his beliefs about abortion with his political ideology?  This is so easy it shouldn’t even have to be discussed.  This is done by defining when life begins.  To Ron Paul, life begins at conception.  If this is the view he has, he has to be concerned about the rights of the baby to its life.  I believe that the abortion debate depends largely on this definition.  If one believes life starts at conception, then abortion is murder.  It can have no other definition.  Therefore, most pro-choice people depend on the definition that life begins at birth.

People behave as though abortion is an abomination of the modern era.  It is not.  The Hippocratic Oath stated that a physician will not give a woman an abortion.  Of course, doctors have chosen to cherry pick which of the oaths they want to follow, but that is beside the point.  This means that the practice of abortion has been around since before Christ.  In nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, infanticide was a common practice.  A mother could only carry one child.  If she had two children and both could not walk, she would kill one if they had to move.  Sparta also killed infants which were deformed.  My question then becomes: “Is the definition of when life begins cultural?”  If a pro-choice person was dropped into such a culture and saw a mother smother a three month old to death, would they view it as a matter of choice or a matter of murder?  A three month old is just as dependent on its mother (or another adult) to live as a fetus in the womb.  Is it moral for someone to kill the three month old but not a third trimester baby?  What about premature births? I assume that the difference must be argued that a baby in the womb only has one means of support, that of the mother.  A three month old could, technically, be passed on to someone else.  Of course, this means that it is only murder if a suitable caregiver could be located for the child.

Some believe that Ron Paul is a sexist because he doesn’t support abortion.  Why on Earth are these viewed as mutually exclusive?  I am sure that Ron Paul believes that women should have equal opportunities and equal protection under the law and equal pay for equal work.  However, as I mentioned before, if he believes that a baby is alive pre-birth, he must also be against abortion.  Only Democrats and members of NOW believe that being pro-woman necessitates being pro-choice.  Isn’t it interesting that no one is calling for greater personal responsibility?  Oh, they will always throw the “What if they were raped?” scenario out there, but how often is that the case?  I find it hard to believe that most abortions are rape related.  Equating the right of contraception (and I don’t know of anybody that thinks that only men should have access to contraception) and abortion to equality is silly.  This format means that men want to prevent women from having an abortion as a means of control, i.e. that they can knock a girl up and force her to marry him and stay at home and raise the kids.  This is the single most moronic thing I’ve ever heard of.  No one believes this, or is it anybody’s reason for being pro-life.  Pro-lifers are pro-lifers for one reason only: They believe that the fetus in the womb is a live human being and is granted all the rights of any other living being.  It has nothing to do with women’s rights.  Also, the sexual revolution (the pill, etc) has led to a culture in which casual sex is the norm.  I should image that most sexual encounters in the past were between people who knew and cared for one another.  An unplanned pregnancy could result in a successful marriage.  This is not the case of unplanned pregnancies which result from purely casual sex or recreational sex.  So we have traded the right to have meaningless sex, a mere moment’s pleasure here and there, for a lifetime of hardship.  This seems like a bad bargain.  It would be far better if both men and women refrained from having sex unless it is with someone with whom they would not mind having a baby, if a pregnancy were to occur despite precautions.

Let us next consider the whole concept of “choice.”  If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is a matter of choice.  If the father slips something into her drink to cause a miscarriage, it is treated as a murder (in most states), and I believe that Democrats and members of NOW would demand that these cases be treated as murder and not as a civil case for loss of property.  So, that means that it is only a matter of choice when the woman decides (“My body, my choice”).  Fair enough, would Democrats and NOW be for allowing men to sue for an abortion then?  That is to say, if a man does not want to be inconvenienced with raising a child or making child support payments, can he sue to force a woman to have an abortion?  I bet the vast majority of Democrats and NOW members would find the concept abhorrent.  Why then cannot the man make the argument that “It is her body and her choice.  I told her that she should have an abortion.  As such, if she has the baby, it is her choice to do so, and I should not have to pay a cost for her choosing to have a baby when she could have just as easily chosen not to have a baby?”  I don’t think that Democrats and NOW would be up for that either.

I am not arguing the morality or immorality of abortion.  I am merely pointing out that Ron Paul’s stance is much more consistent than that of a pro-choice person.  The Libertarian does not withhold moral judgement of a person’s action.  They merely seek laws that protect one person’s rights against that of another.  A Libertarian can believe that prostitution should not be illegal for a variety of reasons but still say that going to prostitutes is wrong.  In America, you can burn Bibles, and it is free speech.  Virtually no one will hurt you, even though most people (including non-Christians) would say that doing so is distasteful and would frown upon such activities.  Try doing that in a Muslim country with the Koran, and see what happens.  In both countries, it is believed that you shouldn’t burn these books.  However, in one you are punished for doing this and the other you are not.  In no way does Ron Paul’s stance of abortion makes him a false Libertarian.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbcs-odonnell-rips-fake-libertarian-ron-paul-over-contraception-abortion/

Trouble in Paradise – Occupy Wall Street

Posted by Troy on 14th November 2011 in Current Events

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45285979/ns/us_news-life/

This demonstrates the problem with Socialism.  The 99%ers want the rich to pay for their benefits.  Now, within their own group, they expect the 1% of themselves to pay for the other 99%.  Of course, it won’t take long for the 1% of them to have enough to this crap and quit.  Then the 99% that’s left will demand the NEW 1% pay.  And then that 1% will leave. Eventually they’ll wind up with the true dregs of society as all decent people with half a brain got outta there.

I bet the allegory will be lost on 100% of them, however.

Long Live the Constitution!

Joe Biden – It’s only temporary

Posted by Troy on 20th October 2011 in Current Events

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9aiupdtfL4

Joe Biden got hot in the face at the proposed “temporary” decrease in police forces.  It’s nice to see Joe actually present for once.  Usually he looks bored, disconnected, and about to fall asleep.  If he spoke this this much passion usually, I might be forced to change my opinion on him somewhat. 

His entire point is that Congress doesn’t know what it’s like to be at the end of a gun, waiting for police to come in and save the day and save us from being rapped or robbed or murdered.  If this is their big deal, then why don’t the Democrats promote gun-ownership and carrying permits?  Criminals are opportunistic.  They will always target those who they can get the most from with the least risk.  Crime rates usually decrease dramatically when right-to-carry laws are on the books.  So why not promote the right of the people to defend themselves?

I grew up in the country where police help was a good twenty minutes away.  Even if you live in the city, police help is usually twelve minutes away (that’s even assuming that you are able to call the cops in the first place).  If a criminal is intent on raping, robbing, or killing you, you probably have five minutes.  If you live in a state where you are actually allowed to own a gun, I highly recommend you do so.  Besides, you may need it in the future to protect yourself from self-entitled “Revolutionaries.”

Long Live the Constitution!