Some scoff when people say the United States is starting to look like Rome before its fall, and they are right to do so. The whole free world is now Rome before the fall, but those with moral character left to fight this fall are obligated to prevent our unrelenting march toward depravity.
“Depravity?! Holy Prudence McFretsalot, KJ!” you say. “You have a lot of nerve talking about depravity when your Twitter feed is a festival of dick jokes & innuendo.” Well, you as a consenting adult can unfollow me, Mr. O’Ffended. What goes on between grown ups is grown ups’ business. True depravity is the ignorance of innocence. It is the refusal to defend and uphold the right of the innocent to live freely.
Noted bioethicist Peter Singer believes the happiness of society at large trumps the right of the unborn and terminally ill to live. He also believes animals can consent to sex with humans, an assertion that speaks to his ignorance of innocence. A man who believes animals, arguably non-sentient, can give permission to participate in sexual relations with the sentient is not your average “pro-choice” (in birth or euthanasia) advocate.
This is a man who, despite all his ethics background, has chosen to ignore the factor of innocence vs. willful intent. His argument that ending the life of a human fetus or that of a person suffering from ALS requires the belief that society’s whims trump the inherent lack of choice bestowed to the innocent. Are stonings of raped women ethical because Muslim society wants it? Were witch trials ethical when superstition trumped evidence?
If one is to ethically weigh the advantages of death against the convenience and comfort of society, it is ludicrously unscientific to disregard innocence. To paraphrase a great character, “Many who live deserve death, and many who die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Peter Singer?” Can you accurately predict which fetus aborted will not discover the cure for cancer? Can you accurately predict which terminal cancer patient’s treatment will not help others live better lives? How does science answer such questions? Since it cannot, we have moral guidance, which has helped human beings survive as a species since we first walked Earth.
The new hotness in tolerance is that pedophilia is an illness or sexual orientation, (whatever is more “tolerant”), backed up with all kinds of junk science. Science is junk when it seeks to prove a hypothesis rather than test it. If a scientist wants to prove anything, all they have to do is work the experiment so that the statistical significance of the data comes up in favor of their desired outcome. If you believe pedophilia is a disorder deserving of treatment rather than punishment, you will find data on neurochemistry, behavior-producing tumors, etc. It exists, because when I was a psychology student, I too studied this data.
That the scientists cited in the article failed to include cognitive factors such as innocence vs. predation is an affront to the quest for understanding. Assume for a moment pedophilia is as real a chronic illness as migraines and lupus. A pedophile who never sexually assaults a child is both sick and innocent. A pedophile who sexually assaults a child, whether caught or not, is sick and guilty as they have chosen to take from a child their biologically programmed dependence on adults for protection from the adult world. A choice was made to prey on those who have no choice: the innocent.
If we are honest with ourselves, we judge ourselves and others by how we treat “the least of us” – the young, the sick, the disabled, the unconscious . . . the innocent. They are called “the least” because they do the least harm, and are therefore most worthy of our consideration and protection. Will the First World fall because we rationalize depravity, or will we rally and stand up for those who cannot stand? If the science is too complicated to answer that question for you, go with the morality imbued in your being.
and here’s today’s lovely gem defending incest: http://www.eonline.com/news/344802/the-notebook-director-nick-cassavetes-talks-incest-super-weird-but-love-who-you-want
Don’t worry. I’ve never seen a Cassavetes film & now I’ll never need to. Wow.
That is the left for you the say we are into it when we are repulsed by incest but yet they defend the right to sleep with your sister with the same big mouth.
great rant, KJ. Perfectly written and needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Excellent point really well presented. Sharing to do my share of shouting!
I know atheist like you have trouble of understanding how science actually works like testing theories out before saying they are the truth I know crazy idea today to actually find proof of theories before calling it the truth but it is ok socialist don’t kill the mentality challenged like you anymore they just appoint you supreme leader.
Like an idiot you missed the point again. Oh and unlike socialist like you I don’t lie or have the need to lie pull your head out of your ass poor excuse of a man.
Always hard to tolerate the things you are not fond of. But to handle them is really simple. You just have to take it in your stride.
Compelling read. Nice presentation.