Home » Posts tagged 'Ethics'
Tag Archives: Ethics
In Defense of Black Lives Matter, and Addressing Certain Arguments Against It
Recently, a close personal friend of mine and I engaged in a debate about racism and Black Lives Matter (BLM). Some of the things that were quoted were a result from that debate, and I felt that it was worth reblogging and sharing.
An Epiphany on Wage Increase Opposition
This is going to be a short(er) one.
I was listening to Kyle Kulinski’s Secular Talk on YouTube in which he was discussing Chris Christie’s recent veto to a proposed bill in New Jersey that would have raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. According to Christie, he believes that doing so is living off of someone else’s money as well as raising the cost of goods.
Kyle points out some key facts such as, you’re not spending other people’s money, it’s money that you’ve earned. Secondly, the Economic Policy Institute alleges that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would make the cost of goods rise by $0.02 to $0.08 in order to meet the new demand for the rise in wages. However, those who are against the minimum wage by reasoning of “it will raise the cost of goods” is not arguing for the sake of the people, they’re arguing that in order to keep the same profit margins, they have to raise the cost of goods.
In other words, they’re advocating corporate greed rather than for human decency. It’s not an argument about paying people more than what they’re worth (because the level of productivity is worth three times more than what the federal minimum wage is currently), or about the rising cost of goods. It’s about “We want to make more money, so you legislators need to artificially keep wages low, or else you no longer have our support nor our money in your next election.”
In other words, it’s money in politics, it’s corruption on Capitol Hill.
Take a look at this chart of living wages by state. The top 5 states that require the highest living wages all require a living wage of at least $59,000. A minimum wage of $15/h only nets you about $31,200 per year. This precludes every single state, if you look at that map. All 50 states have a living wage well over that of our minimum wage. It won’t work. $22/h? Closer, but unlikely, given the climate of the political system.
One of the benefits often touted by leftists is that it would lessen SNAP enrollments and other government assistance benefits, because citizens of the United States would require less aid in order to live comfortably. However, one of the criticisms of this position is that it’s not exactly based in the real world, and fails to account for lost hours and laid-off workers. This criticism is (rightly) backed by the assumption that employers–CEOs, Presidents, etc.–all want to maintain their profit margins. In order to make the same money they do now, they need to lay off workers or cut hours in order to balance the sudden rise in cost of paying their workers.
Obviously, living in a capitalist society, this is going to hurt us in the long run (as we’ve already seen from corporate greed). The market becomes stagnant, and less money flows through the market (because people are trying to save what little money they are earning), which causes wages to stagnate. This causes the market to drive down costs in order to get people to spend money, which is known as displacement. Once displacement occurs, it causes a boom because people are spending money again, which causes prices to go up to meet the demand.
If anyone is familiar with recent history, the last two steps I just described are the same steps that caused the housing bubble and the Great Recession (or the Credit Crunch as it’s known in the UK). My point is that this would occur because wages are stagnant. If they became dynamic (that is, adjusting with inflation as well as level of productivity), the market eventually comes to balance itself. However, corporate greed is driving us off a cliff.
I could be wrong (and I probably am, since I did the most preliminary of researches on basic definitions), so please look into this on your own, and comment if and where I got things wrong.
Shame on My Alma Mater Pt. 2
I decided to go back to McDevitt’s Facebook post to check out the comments and someone (I’m assuming a parent) had actually posted a picture of the original dress code for prom, and to quote her:
#1. For “Ladies”, there are 19 lines of rules, with long sentences, lots of CAPS & some italics: lots of “MUST” & “NOT”.
#2. For “Gentlemen”, there are 10 ones of text, no full sentences, no all caps, & only one use of italics. The tone is much less disapproving / scolding.
To be fair to the school for a moment, there are more varieties of dresses than there are suits, in general. But religious institutions always put the burden of not being temptresses on women, not on men for their behavior.
via Facebook/Eva H.
To argue the point and beat the dead horse even further, nothing about Aniya Wolf’s attire violated the dress code. She was in a tuxedo, and unless you live under a rock and somehow have never seen a tuxedo before, you know what that looks like: dress pants, dress socks, dress shoes, a button-down shirt with cuff-links (optional), a blazer, and a bow-tie. Assuming that she wore this properly, which she did:
via Facebook/Aniya Wolf, pictured on the right
Unless a rule was implemented in which a woman’s hands, face, and hair were deemed offensive, Miss Wolf was well within the guidelines of the dress code. I’ll wait and see if a copy of the email turns up stating (reportedly) hours before the event that the administration restricted her clothing choices to dresses.
It might also be significant to note that the rules were handed out on 13 April when prom was on 6 May. For those of you doing the math, that’s less than 4 weeks, at which point it would be too late to pick out a dress (as I’m sure all the Dress Barns and similar retailers would have been sold out of all but the worst dresses), as well as make the proper alterations to meet the requirements of the rules.
To address the people who say “she could have gone to a different school”, think about when you’re saying this. She has attended Bishop McDevitt for 3 years now. She has worn the same uniform for those three years: slacks and a polo/Oxford shirt bearing the McD logo. Juniors and Seniors are the only ones admitted to prom, barring the invitation by an upperclassmen to an underclassmen. In other words, she had not had the opportunity to “test the waters” of the limits of the dress code (or likely even knew what the dress code was) before a month to three months ago.
We also have to assume that she has otherwise faced no problems before this because she (as were many other students including those during my attendance) was able to wear this uniform. She was also able to wear a suit to the winter formal. She was getting an education which her mother presumably valued, or else she wouldn’t still be attending. She also has no control over which school she attends because she is a minor. She can influence where she goes, but she otherwise has no control over her enrollment.
But moving on.
As I previously wrote, clothing has no bearing on morality. Sexual orientation and gender identity has no bearing on morality. Clothing also has no bearing on the truth (whether you believe in “truth” or “Truth”). You know what does? Actions. Convictions. Beliefs. Values. If your beliefs–in this case, Catholicism–make you discriminate based on subject matter that has no moral indicator (like clothing, education, race, sexual activity), then your sense of morality has been skewed for the worse.
Judging by the dress code, the young women’s virtues (or purity or modesty or virginity or hymen, depending on your bluntness) were valued more than their autonomy. Yes, had any students been harmed while under the ever-watchful eye of the administration, the responsibility would have fallen on them. But in this case, no harm was caused, and based on John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, the only time authority/power/force should ever be exercised on another human being is to prevent harm, or at least prevent the most amount of harm to occur.
The manifest purpose of a school, regardless of whether it is public, sectarian, or home is to provide an education. The latent purpose is to develop one’s identity which will be carried throughout life. In this case, Bishop McDevitt did neither. If anything, it suppressed the identity of an individual, and, despite the outpouring of support from both the student body and people the world over, the school made her feel ashamed of herself. As I’ve written before, it made her feel like a mistake.
Schools also teach us what to value, if not why we value it. As a modern society, we should be taught to value equality, acceptance, and love if nothing else. Facilities of primary and secondary education (that is, K-12) should remain a safe space for its students, and prepare them for their life ahead. Bishop McDevitt failed in its purpose to do this, not just for Aniya, but for the rest of its students. It set the precedent of discrimination based on sexual orientation, based on clothing, based on presumably traditional (read: religious and/or conservative) values. It showed that instead of protecting and supporting its students unconditionally, it will pick and choose who to support and uphold based on arbitrary criteria that ultimately cannot be helped. Worse, it taught younger students who may not have been exposed to any kind of politics (governmental, gender, religious, or otherwise) to discriminate against those that are marginally different from us.
Once again, Alma Mater is the Latin for “nurturing mother.” This is neither nurturing nor caring, but rather harmful if not outright destructive. Bishop McDevitt states that it “cherished”, “accepted”, and “loved” its students, but this is far from cherishing, loving, or accepting. Regardless of what its beliefs were, the simple resolution among the administration, Aniya, and her mother would have simply been to allow her to attend an event during the formative years of her life. It would have garnered less news, less negative reputation (if you visit its Facebook page, Bishop McDevitt now stands at 2.3 of 5 stars), and less national/international attention.
Despite all that I’ve written, I’m not angry. I’m just sad and disappointed. But in happier news, congratulations, York City, for being progressive and “practicing acceptance and love” and inviting Aniya to your prom.
Shame on My Alma Mater
Well, my high school made internet news as well as the local news the other day. For Bishop McDevitt High School (in Harrisburg, PA and not Wyncote, PA), prom presumably celebrated Friday 6 May. I say presumably because all the pictures came up immediately that night and the day after, and also because the story broke that night on the local ABC channel (ABC 27).
For those of you who don’t click the link (because I know most of you don’t), the story is that Aniya (“Ah-n-ya”) Wolf, a student at Bishop McDevitt High School and an “out” lesbian, was rejected from her high school prom because she had worn a suit. From the information I can gather, the dress code for the prom was administered 3 months beforehand, but there was no mention that Wolf could or couldn’t wear a suit to the prom.Wolf’s mother tried to appeal, but evidently failed. However, according to one (who shall remain anonymous for his safety) of my friends who went to the same high school, Miss Wolf had gone to the Snowflake (my high school’s winter formal) in a suit with no repercussions and without ejection from the dance.
Still, Miss Wolf arrived at prom in her suit and was promptly told that she would not be admitted, and, according to her, if she refused to leave, the police would escort her off the premise. This didn’t happen, or otherwise, it would be bigger news, and ABC27 had attempted to reach Bishop McDevitt for a statement, to which it responded that it had no comment at the time. However, the following evening, the administration issued the following statement:
Bishop McDevitt High School held its annual prom on Friday, May 6, 2016.
Without question, we love, respect and cherish all of our students.
The dress code for the prom specified girls must wear formal dresses. It also stated that students who failed to follow the dress code would not be admitted.
The full dress code policy was sent to parents about three months ago. A reminder was sent to all students on March 6. On Friday afternoon, when it was brought to the attention of the school administration that a female student was planning to wear a tuxedo, we contacted her mother in hopes we could resolve the situation.
It’s important to note that students who haven’t adhered to the dress code in past years haven’t been admitted to the prom.
Bishop McDevitt will continue to practice acceptance and love for all of our students. They are tremendous young men and women. We simply ask that they follow the rules that we have put into place.
It makes me sad that I’m writing about my school like this. I understood that, being a Catholic institution, that it was going to be conservative by most standards, but it was always kind, always helpful, if a little strict. I suppose, though, as a cis-hetero (if not white) male, it afforded me the advantages not given to my SAGA/LGBT brothers and sisters.
As my friend (whom I mentioned above) said, “For me, much of the rosy memories of high school are suddenly replaced with the memories of lgbt students at McDevitt being ignored when they were bullied, and senior year religion classes in which our teacher stood in front of the class and fed us intellectually dishonest and patently false statistics that not so softly suggested that lesbian and gay individuals, like a few in the actual class, were products of either child abuse, rape, or some other traumatic experience.”
My issue here isn’t that of the enforcement of the rules. It is a private institution independent of the state and therefore doesn’t necessarily have to follow discrimination laws (as horrendously unfortunate as that sounds). It has the right to enforce the rules as it wishes, and take the measures necessary to see them enforced.
My issue is with the rules themselves. The amount of clothing worn or not worn is not indicative of morality. If anything, it has more to do with the level of comfort and confidence an individual has. The type of clothing, again, has no bearing on one’s morality and ethics, and it is a far leap to assume that someone scantily clad has poor morals (for example, the child molesters of our society).
The amount or type of clothing also has no bearing on one’s sexual activity: as many people have pointed out, if women are raped wearing coats and boots, then the problem isn’t with the women, it’s with the men and our collective inability to teach men self-control, and our collective mindset of vilifying women simply for the fact that they are women. The rules based on clothing, especially in western society, are arbitrary. Women can wear clothing that identifies them as women, that accentuates their “assets” as women, but at the same time, we vilify, mock, humiliate, and otherwise destroy her confidence.
At the same time, we vilify, mock, and humiliate when women decide to cover up. We take them down and destroy them for daring to take control of their own bodies and to control what people see and how much. In short, we as a society are raping our young women, and get angry when they try to take back control. Miss Aniya Wolf tried to take back control and was immediately struck down because she was so audacious as to step outside of the boundaries of “the norm”. Add in the fact that she is a so-called “butch” lesbian and oh my God, someone call the cops because she isn’t normal.
There is nothing wrong with a woman in a suit. In fact, many women can pull off suits better than I can. There is also nothing wrong with a man in a dress. Once again, clothing does not dictate morality. It does not dictate one’s level of faith or religiosity. If the argument is based on modesty, then if she were not modest enough, not one girl at that prom (nor any other for that matter) would be “modest” enough.
Modesty is a socially constructed idea designed to keep our young women trapped underfoot, to keep them ignorant and uneducated about sex, to teach them that they are responsible for not only their so-called “purity” but their husbands’, their boyfriends’,their fiances’ as well. In other words, it relieves men of the responsibility for their sexual actions. In cases of rape, not only is the rapist punished, but the victim as well: by the legal system, by society, by friends, family, and peers. All by virtue of having her “virtue” taken.
It puts undue stress and pressure on them when as a society, we should be promoting knowledge and education, not ignorance and abstinence. We need to teach people that they’re human beings with sentience, not objects for pleasure, or outright animals who have no idea of consent. We should be teaching our young men that they have the ability to control their actions, not just that “evolution programmed” them that way. We need to teach them that no means no. We need to teach young women that they have the right to say no. That they are (or should be) empowered to make their own decisions, to dress how they wish, to be as sexually active as they wish, without fear of repercussion or judgment.
As for my school, I wanted to address that final statement: “Bishop McDevitt will continue to practice acceptance and love for all of our students. They are tremendous young men and women. We simply ask that they follow the rules that we have put into place.” By rejecting Miss Wolf’s choice to dress in a tuxedo to go to her prom, you rejected part of who she is. As she and her mother said multiple times, she has dressed like a boy since she was little. She felt comfortable and happy with the clothes she wore. She felt comfortable and happy in a suit she wore to Snowflake. She felt comfortable and happy with the slacks and Oxford shirt and tie, or the polo as required by the school uniform. In what way is this different from either of those examples?
By rejecting her clothing choices, you rejected her choice to express who she is and how she feels. You made her feel like “a mistake”. That isn’t acceptance. That isn’t love. Alma Mater means bounteous or nurturing mother. You were neither bounteous nor nurturing. You were discriminatory. You acted in bigotry. You were outright hateful.
What Is the Value of A Human?
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about that question. Mostly in terms of myself, but for my purposes, I suppose my thoughts, questions, and responses can be yours too. I’ve wrestled with this question because I wrestle with depression. For those of you who have been lucky enough not to have experienced it, or not experienced it to the degree to which I have or worse, it makes you question everything about yourself. It saps your energy through your thoughts. It makes you question your relationships with people, it puts up walls between you and other people, it makes you question whether or not you even deserve to be alive.
I understand that my perception of my value will be severely skewed in the negative whereas some of you, maybe my readers who have come to enjoy my writing, or perhaps some of my friends (for a lack of a better term), may view me as more a more positive thing, having more value than I give myself.
I’ve been down this path before, but it’ll be the first time I’ve put it to words. I believe that nothing has intrinsic value. Not animals, not humans, not the earth, not even existence itself. I believe value to be a human construct, a human idea. Value comes from a perceived necessity or scarcity. Food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. are all valued because they’re necessary to survival. Gold, silver, other precious metals and minerals are valued because of a perceived scarcity. Existence is valued out of fear or ignorance–we don’t know what’s “in the beyond” and so we cling to what we know and understand.
I find that arguing has something has “intrinsic value” ultimately comes down to, “It’s valued just because.” For some that might be satisfactory, but for me, not so much. For those that reject the idea of intrinsic value, the questions become: In what way am I valuable? What makes me valuable? What is my value? Do I even have value?
And you can see how those questions can become dangerous, especially for someone with a condition like depression.
I don’t know what makes me valuable. If I based my value from the amount of friends I have, then indeed, I believe myself to be near worthless. Maybe less than a handful of friends to whom I can talk candidly about my feelings, my doubts, my thoughts. But of course, I’m making the assumption that the more friends you have, the more value you have because more people hold you in higher esteem.
I think this kind of idea is all but branded into the skin and DNA of America where capitalism is king. The free market bears the weight of a person’s worth, and so they earn as much as they’re worth. If a CEO earns $300,000 an hour, that is because he is worth that $300,000. On the other hand, if a fast-food worker at McDonald’s is making the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 an hour) then it’s because he, or the position he holds, is valued as such.
But what is more valued? Heading a company or providing food and other services to the people who ask or need it? I imagine more people need cooks, electricians, plumbers, and carpenters more than CEOs, but their value in dollars is far less than that of the CEOs’. Obviously, measuring in number of people and measuring in currency is a false standard.
What about one’s way of life? Does one’s actions and decisions determine how much, if any value one’s life has? I’ve made some poor decisions in my life. I’ve gotten into relationships with the wrong people, said the wrong things to the people I’ve loved, made poor decisions academically. But on the other hand, I’ve arguably contributed to society with my thoughts on this blog, I’ve contributed through monetary means to various charities, through my music, art, and other things I’ve created. Does that make me more valuable? Less valuable?
I’ve established that those things have value because they’re desired. But how much are they desired? How much do people want me to keep contributing? Do they want me to continue contributing? Or am I simply a waste of space and resources as I’ve so often told myself?
Another question I’ve thought about: how much is enough? At what point will I feel satisfied that I am properly valued? I don’t think anyone has a metric for which to measure that themselves.
I think many people will tell me (as many before have told me) that I need to value myself first. But how do I do that? How do I find the necessity in myself? What do I find that is necessary about me for me? I don’t know. If I ask that to myself, I would answer that there is nothing necessary about me. There is no shortage of musicians in the world, no shortage of atheists (although I’m sure the atheists would have you think otherwise), no shortage of philosophers or philosophy students, no shortage of writers. In short, I’m surplus.
I think that may be the wrong thing to ask because no one person exists in isolation. Humans exist in community, even the most isolated among us. I think the question becomes, how do I find the necessity people see in me? What is the value that people place in me? How do I find that value?
Psychology Today published an article a few years back discussing this question as well. Dr. Albert Ellis of the Ellis Institute puts it shortly and succinctly: “I am worthwhile because I exist, I am I, and I am alive.” It becomes a matter of self-acceptance of who you are. ““I am I, I exist, and I am alive”thoroughly rejects the belief that my worth has anything to do with my performances, achievements or successes in life.”
The question then becomes, Where and how do I begin?
Why I Will Absolutely Yell At You For Being A Conservative: A Response Part 3
Thankfully, this is the last post I’m writing for now. There was too much stupid to handle with a modicum of intelligence.
8. “You’re ignorant.”
Yeah, you kinda are. Considering I’ve written over 2600 words (and counting) compared to your meager 1000, I’ve written a more substantive article than you, and I have a better understanding of the world around me as well as my country. I’ve backed up my claims with the available evidence. I’ve used the ideas of those better than myself as rebuttal to why you’re wrong. Saying “I know what I’m talking about” doesn’t make it so. I think I’ve pretty much proven that you’re ignorant. What I cannot determine is whether or not you’re willfully or unwillfully so.
9. “You’re crazy if you’d vote for Trump over Sanders or Clinton if he’s the chosen GOP candidate.”
Crazy is a relative term. Again, I would say you’re ignorant. You say you’ve watched the debate, read the articles, and gone to the websites. If you have, then you would understand why this is a dangerous man. This is a man who would force the military to perform war crimes. This is a man who, as I’ve said, would go to war with Mexico over a wall. This is a man who would “open up libel laws” so he can sue the press. So much for the man being for your constitutional rights. He also supports the Patriot Act, the act that employs the use of wiretaps, searching business records, surveillance of internet activity, recording phone calls, and text message interception. In short, he wants to violate your fourth and eighth amendment rights.
As for your claims about Hillary Clinton, the FBI investigations found that emails found on Clinton’s personal account had not come from her, but in fact her aides. As for Bernie Sanders, please see my article A Response to “Why I’m Not ‘Feeling the Bern’”.
I don’t hate Trump for being mean. He has a right to his speech, just as I have a right to mine, and you to yours. I hate him for his racist rhetoric. I hate him for setting this country back not 10 years, 20 years, but 60 to 100 years. I hate him for his xenophobic attitude for anyone who isn’t white, who doesn’t speak English. I hate his contempt for the poor. I hate that he called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers. I hate that he wants to ban Muslims, that he alienates those who need to be integrated. He has been used in Daesh recruitment videos.
He is America’s single greatest terrorist. He is Hitler reincarnate.
As for your wise man, I have two Bible quotes to throw back at you:
I do not suffer a woman to teach or assume authority over a man.
1 Timothy 2:12
And also this:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:24
Why I Will Absolutely Yell At You For Being Conservative: A Response Part 1
It is a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.
–Stephen Colbert
I don’t claim to know everything that’s going on. What I do claim is that I try to pay attention. I watch different pundits, I listen to differing opinions. I understand that I’m a college student. I understand that as a student of philosophy, I will have to listen to dissenting opinions and see whether or not they have merit. More importantly, I listen to people who know better than I do, in addition to doing my own research.
Unlike in this article by Kristi Russell, I will back up and substantiate my claims as well as give proper reasons, instead of simply saying, “No, I’m not X, Y, and Z.” No, I will not thank conservatives, because it was conservative ideas that brought us to this point. For example, the Tea Party Movement was a political movement that began in 2009 after the re-election of President Obama.
It began, much like the Progressive Movement in the 1960s and the 1970s, as a reaction to government action. However, similarly to the Progressive Movement, it was co-opted by political extremists such as Senators Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Governors Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. It claimed to have conservative and populist leanings, demanding that the government reduce the national debt, lower government spending, lower government deficit, and lower taxes. Not entirely disagreeable ideas.
Because it is a grassroots movement with no centralized control, it has no uniform ideas, and no central leadership. Therefore, those who are the most charismatic among them have co-opted the entire Republican Party, dragging it to the far right, and introducing some fascist ideas including the dehumanization of African Americans. If anyone remembers the voter fraud controversy of 2012 wherein voters must obtain a voter ID, African Americans were among those who had the most difficult time obtaining one. Required items ranged anywhere from a drivers license to a birth certificate to a death certificate of a loved one. John Oliver makes a searing criticism in this video.
Not only that, but many began to hold to harmful conservative ideals. One couldn’t get elected without having to say that the LGBT (or the acronym I’m leaning toward–SAGA, Sexuality and Gender Acceptance) community and activists are abominations, that Obama is a Muslim, that he was not born in the US, among other racist ideas. One couldn’t get elected if one agreed or, heaven forbid, compromised with the illegal Muslim president in order to get something done. No, you have to be like Ted Cruz who threw tantrums on the Senate floor, who filibustered everything until he was blue in the face, who threatened the second government shutdown in two years (the first being in November of 2013).
Now, in 2016, the Republican Party has been pulled so far to the right that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has out and out refused to perform his constitutional duty to review the President’s nomination for a Justice of the Supreme Court. So much for conservatives being for so-called constitutional rights, Kristi Russell. Of course, the Tea Party got so much coverage for the unprecedented amount of political obstructionism that people began to see them as “reasonable,” as taking “moral” stances, etc., etc.
Now that we have recent history and news out of the way, let’s get to the meat of the article.
- “You’re just a college girl, what do you know about politics?”
Less than I do, apparently. You write, “Yeah, I’m a basic white girl. I wear Converse to class and my sorority’s letters are on my rear windshield. Guess what though–I do my research.” You’ve done what I and basically every other American have done–follow the horse race. You’ve watched the debates like I have, read the articles, visited websites, and studied polls. But so has everyone else. They appear on Twitter, on Facebook newsfeeds, on Tumblr. It is prolific. So unless you can substantiate your claims outside what every other American has done, I don’t believe you know what you’re talking about.
Everyone knows about Trump’s wall, and how he plans to make Mexico pay for it. Except Mexico is a sovereign nation. It has the right to say no to such an outlandish demand. When asked if he were willing to go to war over the wall, Trump said that when he expands the military, “They won’t want to go to war with us.” Except that that’s not an answer. It’s not an answer about foreign policy. It’s not an answer on economic policy. It’s a dodge.
When Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio talk about removing funding for Medicare and Medicaid, they’re talking about removing healthcare funding for senior citizens who comprise 14% of the population (or approximately 44.7 million), as well as Americans living below the poverty line (14.8% or 46.7 million Americans).
That is a “well-thought-out, educated answer.” It’s not simply about the talking points the candidates spew, but it’s doing the policy research, even just preliminary research that can prove to put lie to their words, or otherwise put some dark implications on how they feel toward a large minority of Americans (in the example above, approximately 91 million out of 322 million Americans).
2. You only believe what your parents raised you to believe.
Well, yeah. When you say, “my parents raised me to understand the value of hard work… did not teach me to rely on other people to get what I want… to accept handouts,” that is their beliefs, their values instilled in you. You hold similar if not the same values your parents hold. You believe in conservative spending, in one’s responsibility in his or her own success. Once again, they’re not bad ideas.
But this doesn’t take you beyond the bubble of your family. You don’t seem to understand that there are people in America who weren’t born as fortunate as you. There are those who live in the ghettos, who had to drop out of high school to get jobs at Rite Aid, McDonald’s, KFC, Burger King, etc. in order to help provide for their family. They can’t afford your college education. They’re also likely not receiving handouts from the government.
The poorest states also tend to be the most conservative. They also tend to be southern. What also tends to be overwhelmingly true about conservative states is that they have a large minority of black population. This means that in states like Mississippi, in Maryland, in Louisiana, in North and South Carolina, black people are institutionally discriminated because there are so many obstacles to their obtaining help.
When the government can’t help them, where do they go? What do they do? Illegal activities. Drug dealing. Prostitution. Pimping. Illegal smuggling. Human trafficking. Slavery. If they become successful at what they do (if being successful means making a lot of money), then would you laud them for making their way in life in the only ways they know how? Or would you throw them in jail because they had no other choice?
Conservatives tout the line of trying to offer equal opportunities to all citizens of the United States, but at every turn, they obstruct those who have the least chance. Is that necessarily equal opportunity? On the other hand, liberals believe in raising the base, and raising them to the point where everyone is equal, ceteris paribus. At that point, what people choose with the opportunities given to them is their choice.
Mater Neglegentiores: on the Canonization of Mother Teresa
In recent news today, Pope Francis has declared that Blessed Mother Teresa’s canonization date is set to be September 4. While Catholics no doubt are celebrating her upcoming canonization, there remains a good many who are skeptical of her so-called “humanitarian” work. I, as well as many atheists, skeptics, and humanists would argue that Mother Teresa, insofar as she can be called “Mother”, has actually been detrimental to “the poorest of the poor.” As such, the title means “Neglectful Mother” as opposed to “Alma Mater” or “Nurturing Mother”.
Christopher Hitchens is perhaps the most famous critic of Mother Teresa, or if we’re to call her by her real name, Gonxha (or Agnes) Bojaxhiu. In his infamous book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and in Practice, he lays out his arguments against her. This article is primarily for those who haven’t read this book yet. It is short, poignant, and scathing.
For those unfamiliar with the Catholic process of saint canonization, it requires two verified miracles (declared so by the Holy Pontiff). After the first verified miracle, the person in question is declared Blessed (abbreviated Bl.). Disregarding the question of how do you verify a miracle when we have no proof miracles occur, popes can then set a date for canonization.
For Bl. Mother Teresa, the first miracle occurred in 2003 when Monica Besra was miraculously cured of her tumor when someone placed a Mother Teresa locket on her stomach. However, according to doctors’ reports, Mrs. Besra had been going through her treatments and was likely to be in sudden remission. One detail that often gets missed that several years after the Mother died, Mrs. Besra continued to suffer and doctors continued to work on her, even after the locket was placed on her. So much for “verified” miracle.
The second miracle was a Brazilian man with a viral brain infection, in a coma. He was “cured” in 2008. However, we don’t know anything about this man. There is speculation, but any information is dispensed from the Vatican doctors and the clergy. Not the least bit suspicious, right? I couldn’t be smelling more fish if I were standing on the Santa Monica Pier.
Agnes’s “hospital”, unbeknownst to the larger global community, was little more than a poor house in which those who were sick came to suffer in their sickness. Medication was improperly dispensed in uncleaned and reused needles that were run under cold tap water. Surgical gloves were washed and hung on a line to be used the next day. Children lay in cribs with no stimulation.
Meanwhile, dear Agnes had access to a fortune. She had access to western medicine, and people all over the world were sending her money (most notably the Duvalier family of Haiti, and Charles Keating), expecting it to be spent on medical supplies, food, building renovation, and every other expense in between. But it was hoarded. In the case of a charity in New York, Mother Teresa disallowed the building of an elevator, because she wanted the patients to suffer and learn the humility of pain.
Suffering. That was her whole campaign. She believed that suffering brought one closer to god. As Christopher Hitchens said, she was no friend to the poor. She was friend to poverty. She believed sickness and poverty–suffering in general–to be a gift from god. Never mind why we should worship a god as cruel as this; this is a sick thought process that one would force people to suffer to no good end for the rest of their days. In an age where many illnesses have cures and treatments, she refused them. According to Seth Andrews in his speech The Mother of Bad Ideas, you were to “accept your fate” and “accept my deity. If you recovered… cool. If not, at least you died in the loving arms of Jesus.”
But besides her unfathomable negligence to the least among us, what other harm has she wrought? In her Nobel Peace Prize, she declared that contraception and abortions are “the greatest destroyers of peace”. In Ireland, in a speech she gave in 1992, she said, ““Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.” She denied the empowerment of women to bodily self-determination. She denied them their freedom. To her, women were chattel to be used as servants and slaves, as breeding stock for an already untenable global population.
Why do we venerate this monstrosity? In the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, “She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.”
“I Am Tired of Hearing About Your Damn Gun Record!”
Watching the #CNNDemDebate, I’m getting really tired of Clinton bringing up Sanders’s gun control record. Yes, he voted in favor of immunity for gun makers. But it’s a ridiculous point to make. Do we hold retailers and manufacturers accountable for the use of knives in murder? Or bows and crossbows, and arrows and bolts? Or car manufacturers for vehicular manslaughter? No, because it’s ridiculous.
The sins of the father should not be placed on the son, and neither should the sins of the owner be placed upon manufacturer and the retailer. Once you take ownership of any item, that item becomes your responsibility, and you should be held accountable for your own actions with your property. If you drink and drive, and happen to take out the wall out of your home, you don’t sue the construction workers who built it for not making your walls out of titanium.
If you want to get rid of gun crime, pass stricter gun laws. Outlaw them like the UK. It took one mass shooting (Dunblane massacre) for the UK to ban firearms in 1997. Gun crimes happen in places that allow open and concealed carry. The narrative that a “good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun” is not only ridiculous, it is patently false. It was sold to us by the NRA–the Church of Guns of America–and Hollywood, the Vatican of America.
Answers in Philosophy 
