Actually, my argument isn’t for respecting the rights of the fetus (because we’re not sure if they actually have any), it’s simply for not aborting them. And the capacity for rationality isn’t a “it could have it one day” argument. It’s necessarily tied to whether that thing is a life or not. Which, of course, we don’t know (though god knows people love to pretend like we do). And in the case of doubt, the error should be made on the side of preserving life.
Well, I’ve touched on those points here and there, but my core argument with regard to their value in any future relationship. A lot of people like to call them “used goods” - but it’s much, much worse than that. My argument centers around the fact that “the new man;” the metrosexual, sensitive feminist; will never be important to a single mother. She’s got the kid, it understandably takes priority #1, and nobody can blame her for that. But the consequential reality is, any guy after the fact will automatically, by the nature of the situation, always be at best, priority #2 in her life. He’ll always take a backseat in the relationship to the bastard child of her prior failed relationship. That’s no kind of relationship for a man with any esteem.
Now, you people have got to stop saying that.
I wouldn’t be saying it if I didn’t.
Sure, dismiss me out of hand. Don’t respond to my questions. Call me a troll, that’s not overzealous at all. No one’s going to pull one over on you! Especially people with different beliefs! God, how could anyone have any beliefs whatsoever unidentical to your own? They just couldn’t. You’re an infallible, open-minded intellectual.
The sad truth is that you know I’m right. How do these women not figure out the negative traits of the guys they plan on marrying beforehand?
I mean, I’m a scary judge of character, sure - but it doesn’t take a sigmund freud to see a monster lurking under the surface. Unless you’re intentionally trying not to see it.
A single mom is a single mom.
Unless the guy died tragically and unexpectedly, that pretty much leaves you with, “You’re a stupid fucking moron who shacked up with the wrong idiot.” Far as I can figure (and I’m wholly open to argument to the contrary), you can’t be a single mom without being either a widow or a complete fuck-up. Right?
Why would you have a child with someone like that?
Hello! Fucking get to know the person before you start punching out his half-DNA from your uterus.
“Oh, but he changed!” You know what? Maybe he did. Still, know what you’re getting yourself into before you commit to it. I swear to god. You could be someone I love you to pieces, but I can’t help picturing you as one of those daffy bitches that’s buying Ginsu knives on late night telemercials.
Know what you’re getting before you commit to it. Sex is fun, but it’s not that worth it, you know what I’m saying?
Coulter’s OK. Kind of like O’Reilly. Sometimes gets it right, sometimes gets it wrong. People hate her for her delivery, and as such she usually has the effect of preaching to the choir - while everyone else dismisses her out of hand.
I am unfamiliar with her criticisms of single motherhood.
You know something I really love about myself? My ability to not give into base instinct to do something I know is completely stupid.
There’s a one-word mantra for it.
Let the sense take over the emotional impetus.
Take a good, hard, long look at what you’re thinking about doing, and then realize how stupid it is to do it. And then don’t do it. It’s really not difficult.
You know what really bugs me? We’ve tried to idiot-proof the world. Our entire society in America (and Canada, and Western Europe, and Australia) is a system of child-locks on cabinets because we know that our children are too stupid to not drink the bottle clearly marked “Poison.”
I think it’s high time we let the idiot children drink the poison. For all you jackasses that believe in so-called “Social Darwinism,” you must agree with me. Let the stupid people choke themselves in chain link fences and lose a limb or two to the lawnmower or garbage disposal. Surely they have it coming. Why won’t you “bleeding hearts” let these morons kill themselves off? Why do you continue to champion their idiotic behavior as virtuous?
And this doesn’t just apply to the overall “Gee, should I stick my arm into the wood chipper” situations. This is everything. For example… No bullshit, I am really, really, really sick of single-moms. And, yeah, I blame that entirely on the women. Have a little goddamned common sense. Close your legs to that degenerate college dropout. Close your legs to that mall security guard. Close your legs to that insurance salesman. Why are you settling for a loser like that in the first place? Because you want to have sex? Have a little freakin’ self-respect, you stupid whores. You stupid, slutty, skanky, disease-ridden, children-straddled whores.
Am I being cruel? Maybe. Am I right? Yes.
Women, listen to me very carefully. You should not be breeding unless you’re in it for the long haul. And if you’re not, then shut your freakin’ legs. Cut the man off. If he has a problem with that, he doesn’t respect you to begin with and only wants you for one thing. Otherwise, I’m sorry (no I’m not) but you’re a whore. You may not be getting paid in negotiable currency, but you’re trading sex for something you want. And that makes you a whore. A whore.
Don’t try to deny it. You know it’s true. Deep down, you know that’s all you are. That, and nothing else. A physical recepticle for someone else’s pleasure. You convince yourself there’s some meaning to it, but deep down you know better. You’re a whore, and nothing more.
Get up, grow up, and get some self respect. If I had any pity, it might be for you. But I don’t. So all I do is look down on your type with contempt. Frankly, I shouldn’t even have to do that. You should only have to take one look at your own pathetic life to realize the truth behind what I’m saying. You’re a single mother, burning up the best of your attractive years, because you were a stupid child that made a stupid decision that you didn’t expect would stick with you, but did.
Welcome to a world with consequences.
I hope you all suffer horribly. Alone, and in constant stress and pain. This is the end result of your stupidity. You are a person that nobody worth anything will ever want. Ever.
For all of you reading this that are not stupid enough to have fallen into this black hole, I can only give you one single word of advice; one word that sums up everything you need to know about every emotional impulse you have that drives you to the contrary:
Resist it. Don’t let it drag you down. Do not let it make you into the worthless dregs we see around us. Do not let it dictate your life. Resist. RESIST. Resist becoming one of the hundreds of thousands of slimes that we see on this site and in our lives every single day.
I read a really interesting article today, which hit home on a lot of different levels. “Love in the Time of Darwinism” talks at great length (far too much for me to blockquote) about the subject of the modern male and how he’s reticent to engage in relationships (let alone marriage or child-bearing) with the modern female.
Their argument, in effect, was that the [single young male] is putting off traditional markers of adulthood — one wife, two kids, three bathrooms — not because he’s immature but because he’s angry. He’s angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He’s angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He’s angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.
Admittedly, the article goes into a small degree of “nice guy whining” - though, more commenting on the fact that nice guys are finding slim pickings amongst a dating pool of contemptible whores, than the archetypical whining we’re all nauseatingly familiar with on this site about “being a nice guy who can’t find a decent chick.”
However, for a guy like me (as some of you may have seen in reblogs) the issue isn’t so much, “How do I find a nice girl?” as it is “Why should I bother anyway?” My overabundance of cynicism has led to many journal debates in which I’m making the point that women are “all the same” or “a dime a dozen” as a result of them having sacrificed their chastity for feminism. My glib response being, “Why should any man buy the cow? The cow gives away the milk for free. And if she doesn’t, the cow next to her does.” Many people focus on the sex-aspect of that comment, but consider another aspect: when sex is the only thing a woman brings to the table (and let’s face it, in this day and age, that is all she brings to the table,) what does it matter who the woman is? And why should the man commit to her, given the enormous costs of doing so, when he can just trade her out like a used car?
This was also an interesting point in the article:
The cultural muddle is at its greatest when the dinner check arrives. The question of who grabs it is a subject of endless discussion on the hundreds of Internet dating sites.
The article goes on to say that many (modern) men find this issue confusing because we’ve had the idea that “the sexes are equal” drummed into our heads since birth. What’s the man to do? Act on the time-honored notion of picking up the check? Presume that she intends to split? Let her pay in order to show how “independent and empowered” she is? And as we’ve seen in every debate on this issue here, we can’t seem to come to a consensus on the issue - because every chick seems to have some different conclusion about it. What’s the man to do when there’s no general “standard” for such a thing?
And this isn’t an issue that only pertains to dating. This confusion that feminism has introduced into the world carries over into basic interactions in the social world. Have any of you heard me talk about the number of times I’ve been yelled at by a feminists for having the audacity to hold a door open, or offer my seat to her on the bus? Many women (and men) cavalierly dismiss this as “rare occurrences.” “She was just a bitch,” they say, “most women wouldn’t mind.” But you know what? It only takes one to get you doubting. The first time it ever happened to me was in college, in 1999. For almost a decade since, I’ve been wary of extending simple courtesies to women for mainly because I don’t want to risk the headache of her going off on a tirade about how she’s an “independent, empowered woman that can open her own doors.” Nowadays, I rarely even bother with courtesies of that nature unless it’s for a woman of 50 years or older. And if you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with Ms. “Rare Occurrence.” Because she’s poisoning the well for the rest of you.
“I am woman, hear me roar,” they say? Well I am man, and I’m sick of being roared at. Ladies, get a leash on your gender.
I mean, let’s face it. “Rare occurrence” or not, it forces a generalization on you ladies. And, as the article said, “Adding to the bitterness of many SYMs is the feeling that the entire culture is a you-go-girl cheering section.”
A question I’ve asked many times to women and never really gotten a straight, objective answer on is, “Why the hell should men want anything to do with you?” At best, the answer is sex. And I’ve already explained how women gave that card up. That’s kind of sad, don’t you think?
Perhaps I’m a minority in this view (though the article makes me think otherwise), but when I consider a relationship, I consider it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. What am I giving up, and what am I getting in return? The reason I’m often single is because, before my lady, I had yet to meet (or even come in CONTACT with) the woman in which the latter outweighs the former. Women have heard me callously remark, “You’re just not worth it.” Sorry, but that’s the truth. You really aren’t.
Jillian Straus describes a 34-year-old sales manager from Dallas who says that his current girlfriend meets just six out of his ten requirements for the perfect girlfriend. When they go out together, he’s constantly looking for an “upgrade.”
And why shouldn’t he? What value are women expecting him to submit to in this day and age? As I have asked before, doesn’t it seem to anyone else like women want to be treated like dehumanized sex objects? Why should he treat her as anything but?
This point struck with particular resonance:
Twenty-two percent of the men in the National Marriage Project’s survey were “relatively hardcore marriage avoiders,” mistrustful of women, and highly skeptical of lifelong commitment. The years they’ve spent prowling the dating savanna only reinforce their cynicism.
Yeah, I guess I’m in that 22%.
Can anyone give me a non-subjective (ie. something more substantive than “I’m not like that!”) reason why I shouldn’t be?
Before I start, let’s go ahead and dispense with the “Godwin’s Law” nonsense right now - because make no mistake: I’m not resorting to a comparison with the Nazis here because I’m out of arguments in a long-running discussion and I wish to denigrate the competition by likening them to Nazis. Instead, this is a fresh discussion - and I’m starting with that argument right out of the gate. This is a direct contrast of two markedly similar things as a base argument.
A left-leaning friend of mine took offense to my contrast of Hitler with the modern liberal socialists of today. He argued that, despite being “national socialists” - the Nazi Party wasn’t anything like the socialism which he vehemently defends. He was, of course, wrong. The Nazi Party and the modern liberal socialist are different only in practice - not in principle.
They both aimed to socialize the nation. They consolidated power in a major way that made the people completely helpless to do anything about it. They stripped property rights “for the greater good.” They mandated activity “in the people’s best interest.” They horned their way in to every social structure they could because “the common man couldn’t be trusted to get it right - and by ‘right’, of course, I mean the way I want them to.”
The only difference is that one did it with a smile and the other did it at gunpoint. Socialist Liberals have been going with the former approach for decades - having learned a lesson from Hitler’s attempt, I imagine. But make no mistake - the society they want, the government they want, the power that they want is no different than that which the Nazi Party stood for.
Ask yourself - imagine (or if you are, don’t imagine) you’re an American in this day and age, and the Federal Government (probably through the Supreme Court) outlawed/mandated something - anything. What the fuck all could you do about it? There’s no voting, no representation, nobody to complain to that’ll give a damn, and nowhere to go. They whitewashed the nation with Federal Power. What are you going to do? Write your congressman? You’ll be lucky if anyone on his staff even opens it.
Let’s not kid ourselves people. Even despite the smattering of right-winged politicians that have had significant power, this country has slid left with increasing speed for decades. They haven’t had the guts to make a radical move, like nationalizing industries (though, mark my words, that’s next - and we’re already seeing the preludes to it what with the Executive Branch meddling in private corporation affairs) or socializing medicine - but ask yourself what these people ultimately want. They want to take your guns away, for one. A disarmed resistance can’t put up much of a fight. They want to heap all kind of regulations on your personal and commercial lives, from environmentalism to utilitarianism - and they make it seem like it’s got a noble purpose. Why? What better way to phase in large-scale social control? They make such ado over the dissemination of information in public schools, and exert so much influence over the curriculums. Why? That one’s easy - it’s the basic preying on young, impressionable minds (College professors especially are notorious for this. Especially the tenured ones. And they’re not above inflicting punishment upon those students that don’t fall in line. I’ve experienced that one personally). They want the Federal Government to have all kinds of powers it was never intended to have - why? Because it squashes the dissenting voices of all those “backwards rednecks” in the red states, and takes all the steam out of the 9th and 10th Amendments. They’re so unbelievably high on paternalistic social regulations - from seat belts, to cigarettes, to drinking and driving, to gambling, all these things that hurt no one but the person engaging in them - they want to outlaw out of existence. Why? To get you used to the idea that “Mommy Knows Best” and to absolve you of any kind of personal responsibility for your life and your actions, hence making you completely dependant on Mommy Government and her superior wisdom regarding how one should live his life. And let’s not forget the unending civil suits for every little insult and indignity that happens in life. What better way to suppress free speech and personal autonomy than by slapping you with punitive for it?
Look at the world we live in - this world of surveillance cameras, and police checkpoints, and mandatory recycling, and low-flow toilets, and alcohol curfews, and all that endless red-tape of “government licensing” for all those recreational, commercial or political activities you might want to get involved in. Look at the absurd degrees of taxation and regulation over every little “sinful” vice a person might want to indulge in. What kind of world is this, and why the hell would anyone want to live in it?
Why would they do these things, if not for a desire for power akin to that of which Hitler wanted and tried to get by force? How can any intelligent person bear witness to these subtle movements, and not realize their true malevolent intent? The only reasonable answer I can muster is: because they want to be slaves. Maybe not the whipped and shackled kind, but rather, the kind that allows others to dictate the terms of his life because he can’t be bothered to think for himself; or make decisions knowing the burden of responsibility and accountability for those decisions. It’s the same sickness that infects the religiously devout. Everyone just wants to glide through life. They’d rather believe a fairy tale (with zealous fervor), than face their fear of uncertainty. They’d rather let someone else make their decisions for them, than make their own decisions and have to face their consequences. God forbid they have to take on the responsibility of thinking. Better to let someone else do that for them. “The government must do what the people cannot do for themselves.” That statement has a whole new meaning when you realize its true gravity.
The sad part about this chapter in history, though, is that there won’t be any Allied Forces to repel the national socialists of our age. And you know what? I’d take a couple hundred million Hitlers over a couple hundred million left-wing socialists any day of the week. Because at least Hitler had the stones to come at us head-on, as opposed to the latter, who smiles as he talks out of the sides of his mouth, offering a peace sign in one hand and concealing a dagger behind his back in the other. What socialists fail to realize is: the utopia they’re being promised will only be so as long as those they’ve granted absolute power to desire it. And once they don’t - once their facades of compassion and benevolence start to fall - there’s not a damn thing they’re going to be able to do about it.
So many of us would readily volunteer to walk up and shoot Hitler point-blank in the head. Yet so many of the same willingly fall to their knees in deference to the same wolf wearing a different sheep’s costume. The modern American liberal socialist may not be wearing jackboots - but I can still recognize a goosestep when I see one.
I watched “Gone Baby Gone” last night. Interesting. I had heard nothing of this movie, but the little “Info” description on my cable box made it sound like it was worth watching, so I did. The movie itself from an aesthetic point was… eh (Mostly because I hate hearing how those schmucks from “Sahth Boahstahn” talk). But it did have a pretty good philosophical aspect to it. I mean, it was pretty straightforward and simple for me - but those who know me know that I find myself intrigued by reading the varying thoughts and responses of it by others. So, as I like to do, I started skimming the IMBD boards.
Oh yeah, totally going to be spoilers here. Don’t want it spoiled? Don’t read this.
The various comments seemed to focus on the “moral dilemma” the movie presented. There’s a lot of argument on both sides, but only, it seems, from people who consider the moral issue at hand a “dilemma” in the first place. See, what most folks I’ve been reading don’t seem to understand is that it wasn’t a moral dilemma. And I suspect the only reason they’re struggling is because
A) they don’t understand Patrick’s reasoning (these types tend to be going on at length about why he was wrong and what might happen and what could have happened and etc etc etc); or
B) if they do and agree with it, they don’t quite know why (going on at similar lengths to try and explain it when it’s really a very, very simple thing).
What people seem not to understand is the basis for Patrick’s reasoning in returning the child. This, of course, is an easy thing to fail to understand because, well, Ben Affleck screenplayed/directed this movie, and the guy is a moron. I don’t think he even knew why the child should be returned - so he came up with some contrived reasons that he couldn’t really explain to justify something he knew was right.
Let me put it simply. What Patrick didn’t understand was that he was defending a moral absolute. I honestly don’t think Patrick even understood what that moral absolute was - but he knew it was there, and he knew there was only one right thing to do. Damn the costs and consequences - to the girl, to the wrongful men who acted with noble intentions (Doyle, Bressant, and Lionel), and to him.
The end scene was very poignant, I thought. Just he and the girl sitting on the couch. We are shown the costs of living by a moral absolute. Sometimes it’s tough. But it’s right. And that’s the only thing that matters.
Yeah, in the long run, the girl’s life might end up going sideways (heck it will almost certainly end up going sideways - if the end scene with the trash mother getting ready for her date is any hint at the girls future) - but at least it’s her life. At least she wasn’t (and this was so the perfect word for it) stolen, on the justification that they were somehow doing her a favor by engaging in their wrongdoing. If that’s the case, then why bother with the elaborate scheme? Why not just shoot the mother, dump her in the quarry, and turn the kid over to Lionel? Heck, grease Patrick too, if he starts sniffing around too much. They’re cops - they could get away with it. Maybe Bressant could have just planted some more evidence. The question is, just how much “wrong” do we tolerate in the name of “right?” What is the road to Hell paved with again?
“What’s best for the kid,” a common argument I’ve been seeing, isn’t the only thing that mattered here. It wasn’t even the most important thing that mattered. What mattered was, “What’s right, and what’s wrong?” Patrick realized this right away, after having shot Corwin Earle (the child molester). “Would you do it again,” asked Bressant. “No,” replied Patrick, unequivocally and without hesitation.
Would the girl being kept by Doyle necessarily have been a “better life?” The film seemed to imply that it would. And would certainly. But we can’t possibly know that. As Patrick said, lives of “sandwiches and family trips” aren’t the only things that are important here. What’s important was, “What’s right?” Patrick knew it. A lot of the people I’ve been reading seem to know it too. They just don’t seem to understand quite what the “right” is, despite their ability to appreciate its existence (usually tending to defer to the authority and edicts of a higher power - is it any surprise, by the way, that Patrick is a Catholic? Who also, as a group/faith, tend to “know” what’s right but have absolutely no idea why?)
On that note, we turn to the basis of the moral absolute. As I’ve been reading, I’ve seen a lot of people use a lot of words to try and explain something they know, but can’t seem to enunciate.
It’s very simple. In a world of moral absolutes, which ours is, noble ends will never ever justify wrongful means. The price of good can never be paid for by acts of evil. Period.
This is what Ed Harris’ character, Bressant, was about. He lived by a creed that dictated that as long as the “right result” is achieved, then it doesn’t matter how one goes about achieving it. This is wrong, and Bressant eventually succumbed to its inevitable consequence. Recall the scene at the hospital where he openly advocates flat-out murder to anyone that harms a child (which he also admits the failing of his moral theory: “Is the kid better off without his father? Yeah… well… I mean… could be out there right now pumping with a gun in his waistband”). Immoral means for noble ends do not necessarily mean those noble ends will occur. And, of course, appreciate what Bressant was reduced to in the end. Faking a robbery and holding a shotgun on innocent people who had nothing to do with those ends whatsoever. Still think the ends justify the means?
I have to say, I was genuinely surprised at the higher level of intelligence and maturity in the debates over at IMDB (maybe we’ll get lucky and see it here too if the hipsters can stop taking pictures of cupcakes and cats long enough to respond to an intelligent post that doesn’t appear immediately inflammatory to their ill-conceived values). A lot of people went to a lot of effort to highlight the practical problems and potential negative consequences of leaving the girl with a family that isn’t hers. And, sure, we could go at length here with similar “what if” scenarios and various thought experiments, but it’s not really necessary. What it tends to come down to for the majority of people - and I was amused to see the various points in which people admit they’re torn about what decision they would have made - was saying, “I see both sides, but I just don’t understand where you draw the line.”
The line is easy to draw. Patrick knew it and did it. That’s not to say he didn’t struggle with doing so, but in the end - even having the consequences presented directly to him (both by Doyle and Angie) - he did it. Because as I said, Patrick was operating on behalf of a moral absolute (even if he didn’t know it).
Those struggling to draw the line (such as Angie), or those who thought they could tiptoe over it to some “harmless” degree (like Lionel and Doyle), or those who think they can just flat out ignore it (like Bressant) are attempting to reconcile some kind of relative morality. They’re trying to convince themselves of a world wherein a thing is “right” if they can find some way to rationalize it to themselves, and contrive some kind of false justification that focuses solely on the positive ends and remains willfully ignorant to the wrongful aspects about it. It’s no different than if a scientist were to fake his results to “prove” his false conclusion. This, however, does not and has never ever worked in the entirety of human history. There is no such thing as “relative morality.”
To those still wrestling with which side of the moral absolute they come down on, I would suggest looking at it from a different perspective. By and large, I’ve seen a very emotionally-based perspective that questions what’s best for an abused and neglected child in a horrific crackden of a home being raised by a drunk and irresponsible “mother” (if you can even call her that). From that angle, I can appreciate why there might be difficulties in realizing the moral absolute. That, however, is emotional response messing with you - trying to get you to compromise that absolute.
If I may suggest a different, more emotionally detached perspective: Are deceit, theft, kidnapping, assault, and murder wrong? Are these wrongful acts? Never mind who they’re being perpetrated against or by whom. In the abstract, would you consider these “good” things? Disregarding circumstances and considering only a man’s basic human rights, is it wrong to deceive another? Is it wrong to steal from him, or beat him, or murder him?
If your answer is yes, then congratulations - you just sided with Patrick. Even if you, like him, don’t quite know why.