Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Human Rights

I thought I'd just do a little thinking out loud (so to speak) about the religion of inalienable rights. It's funny how a purportedly rational society has accepted as fact the totally unsubstantiated notion that all people possess some mysterious quality known as a "right". More ridiculously, this concept of rights has been divorced from religion, where it more properly belongs, and elevated to the status of a recieved truth for most people. Where religion is excluded to the most part from politics, rights have become the basis for international law!

As a self-styled crusader against ignorance, I feel it is my duty to set the record straight: There is no such thing as an inalienable or fundamental human right -or, to be more precise, even if there was one, we wouldn't know. The "rights" we know are nothing more than human constructs -myths, if you will. I don't mind saying that I'm frankly sick of people taking the ideas as given and building arguments upon them. People only have rights if we chose to give them rights!

Of course, this also has implications for animal-rights arguments. Animals, like humans, do not have any inherent rights. None. This is not to say that we cannot give animals rights just as we have humans, but it does mean that most of the animal-rights people's arguments fall by the wayside.

Of course, if you believe that rights come from some source such as God, you are free to ignore the preceding completely. You still have no evidence, though, unless you can come up with proof of that source's existance.

I suppose I should consider discussing religion, but that's a topic for another day.

Thought for the Day:

“If we are the only intelligent life in the universe, then we should get down on our knees and thank God that no other planet was afflicted with the likes of us”

-The Doom of Fools

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Soy woes

Well, it appears that soy is now off the menu! Apparently non-fermented soy products (and even to a lesser extent fermented ones) are not so healthy after all, at least according to my mom's magazine. I suppose this means I'll have to become more serious about my vegetarianism -and eat vegetables! Or else go back to eating organic meat, that is. naw, I don't even like meat anymore. I'll just have to learn to cook, I guess, since all the convinient soy foods are out now.

*sigh* being informed sucks.


Thought for the Day:
“Beware of those who believe, for they have the power to do great things for good or evil, but lack the wisdom to distinguish between the two”

-The Doom of Fools

Sunday, June 13, 2004

Communism

Here's a rant about communism inspired by the communism.com website:

Communism, as Marx envisioned its final stage, is a practical impossibility. It requires fundamental changes to the basically selfish, lazy and power hungry nature of human beings, implying as it does a society where all are equal, and where all people produce for the simple joy of production.
The creation of a Marxist utopia is also difficult if not impossible, if only by virtue of the fact that Marx himself never describes the process by which the dictatorship of the proletariat will transform into communism. Nor does Marx describe in any detail the way in which a true communist society would work, or the reasons which would keep it from degenerating (evolving?) into a capitalist system once again.
I am not a capitalist by any means, and I think that if ever a golden age of human love and understanding dawns, communism could become a reality. All that I'm saying is, don't hold your breath.
As for the professed communists out there, as far as I can see you're either power hungry, deluded, or dreamers.
In the case of the first variety, who often take the Soviet Union etc. as examples, I say this: To wish for a communism modeled off of that in the Soviet Union (or for that matter anywhere in the world today) is a terrible thing and an insult to Marx's beliefs, and stems from nothing but a shameless lust for power and a will to dominate others.
For any deluded communists out there, who either truly believe that communism is practical or who think the U.S.S.R is a shining example: wake up and smell the Gulag, people! Communism has never been created and will not be given all present norms of human nature. Stalin killed from 40-50 MILLION people while purporting to build communism (a claim which was, by the way, either a shameless lie or a dismal failure)!
Finally, to all the people out there who hope for better times and dream of a communist utopia someday existing: If human nature ever changes, it may be possible to create a perfect world, and it is perhaps a noble thing to work towards, but I see few enough signs in our world today which give me cause to hope. To you is given the choice. Either live a life in true accordance with Marx's ideal, and attempt to influence others to do the same through your example, or else resign communism to the dustbin of history and move on with your lives.

Communism is Dead!


Thought for the Day:

“Ignorance can be bliss for those who possess it, but it’s damned frustrating for the rest of us!” -The Doom of Fools

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Feminism

So many fools, and me so powerless to cleanse them. sigh.

I've decided to discuss today my opposition to the use of the term "feminism". This argument arose from my (admittedly limited) readings of feminist philosophy. The ideas expressed herein are my own and so if I am stepping on anyone's prior theorizing then too bad! My argument runs as follows: (P=premise, C=conclusion)

P1: Those professing to be feminists fall into (roughly) two groups.
The first group maintains that issues relating to sexism (towards males or females) and racism, as well as other forms of discrimination are equally important and valid, and claims no special place for women. Let us call these feminists inclusive feminists.
The second group singles out women or women's issues as somehow unique or important in a special way above and beyond other forms of discrimination or other issues. Let us call these exclusive feminists.
P2: "Feminism", with its feminine root, most properly denotes a philosophy which in some way singles out women or the feminine.
C1: "Feminism" therefore most properly denotes, of the two feminist philosopies, the exclusive feminist philosopy.
P3: In the intrests of clarity, theories should be described as accurately as possible by their names. The theory of Evolution, for example, would be badly served by being called the theory of Revolution!
C2: The inclusive feminist philosophy should be seperated from the exclusive one, and renamed in order to better describe its commitment to ending all discrimination. For example "equalism" or "anti-descriminationism".
P4: Forms of ideology which place the intrests of one group above others or which consider the issues surrounding one group as more important than those of others are wrong and should be stamped out.
C3: From P1 and C1 and C2 and P4: Feminism, in its only accurate meaning, is wrong and should be stamped out.

The word feminism, then, is either mistakenly used or signifies a vile odious, and dubious contention that women's issues are inherently more important then those of other groups.
In my opinion, it should be used only to describe the bad type of feminism. The good feminists deserve to be inducted into the ranks of those who are without predjudice, and should no longer be tainted by the predjudice of the exclusionary feminists.
I am convinced that this argument is sound on the whole. The argument is likely not quite as logically correct as it might have been had I paid more attention in Logic, but I think it will suffice. I will address minor issues with it as they become apparent to me.

Thought for the Day:
“Faith walks hand in hand with ignorance, and turns its back on truth.”
-The Doom Of Fools

An Update:
The view expressed here is, like all my posts, at best a snapshot of my thought. As a result, I here offer a qualification to it, which has become apparent to me in conversations with people who did not entirely agree with my view. 'Feminist', I think, does have a place as a legitimate term to describe certain studies. In particular, studies which focus upon things which are essentially female in nature, including, but not limited to, studies of female socialization, can legitimately be called 'Feminist'.
This still leaves out, of course, the epistemological and other such theories which are sometimes referred to as 'Feminist', insofar as they do not offer conclusions which are either only comprehensible to or only about women. Theories such as these, which offer more or less universal conclusions, need not be identified as feminist, any more than theories about epistemology written in the 19th century need to be identified as masculinist. In either case, the theories in question are either right or wrong irrespective of the sex of the person who wrote them.
There is one way in which such a theory could be referred to as 'Feminist' which would not be problematic. This would be if the theory arose from the tradition of thought which was started with the Feminist movement. In this case, however, the term is being used more in a historical sense, to locate the theory in time. It has no bearing on the theory as such.

Thought for the day:
"Rigidity begets annihilation, flexibility begets survival"
-The Doom of Fools