Mass homicides1, mass rapes2, are caused by Leftist policies. Yet, leftists invert reality, unopposed, and are allowed to keep the moral high ground. Leftists attack allegedly evil “racists”, “xenophobes”, and “white supremacists”. No, they do not label us as good persons with “racist” ideas.
Terrible results of PC policies are never branded as evil and deadly. Censorship gag orders make sure PC policies are unfalsifiable3. Naïve young uninformed Leftists do not know #RacistFacts. The true Evil are the PC Gag Orders that prevent them from ever finding the truth. Because the truth is “racist”4,
Here’s the deal — Hutchison is 51 years old, and his new bride Courtney Alexis Stodden is a mere 16 years old!!! That’s right. She’s just a child and yet their "consensual" marriage to one another is as legal as they come apparently, thanks to none other than Courtney’s own mother!
Way to be a pervy creep and ruin a young girl’s life, Hutchison! Way to look out for your daughter, Moms! Is anyone sane in this really freakish situation?
How do people know that a happy marriage with a mature loving men will ruin a girl’s life? Nowadays, Romeo and Juliet would both be arrested, and the "Blue Lagoon" heroes (t least the boy) would be jailed after their return to "civilization".
Her parents should have been arrested for letting a 51 year old PERVERT MOLEST their MINOR CHILD! Because mo matter how "old" she looks, she is just that…a child! For them to marry means that at some time he was putting the "moves" on her, or even dating her! That is ILLEGAL in most states here! GAG! I JUST THREW UP IN MY MOUTH AT THE THOUGHT! YouTube commentator
In the above YouTube video, we see a happy couple with conservative attitudes about virgin marriage. Cruel, anti-teenage sexuality age-of-consent laws frequently destroy such a love affair with cruelty
Thousands of men, and a few women men have their life destroyed in similar situations. A unholy union of religious conservatives and repressive feminists decide, against Álexis’ will, that she is a poor victim. That adolescent Alexis Stoddenis a child  that can not consent* to sex. But in some jurisdiction she magically has maturity to consent to sex with boys of similar age, while in other states 2 adolescents are raping each other when engaging in consensual sex. Systematic language manipulation changes the meamings of words like rape*, consent*, child*, pedophile* etc. Our language has been distorted so much, that: had Doug fondled her, before marriage, with full consent, he might have as well raped her forcibly, it would be the same. The same punishment, and the same press reports ("Actor sentenced for raping child"). Doug Hutchinson was wise enough to avoid this, but thousands of men languish in jail for consensual sex with adolescent "children". The Antifeminist has feminism-is-sexual-trade-union-theory to explain such institutionalized cruel interference in private bedroom affairs.
"We’re aware that our vast age difference is extremely controversial," the couple said in a statement released by their spokesperson. "But we’re very much in love and want to get the message out there that true love can be ageless." According to the Clark County, Nevada Marriage Bureau, both marriage license applicants must be at least 18 years of age. But minors (below the age of 18) are able to obtain a license with the consent of a parent or legal guardian — reasoning that at least one of Stodden’s parents approves of their daughter’s May-December marriage. Hutchison’s young wife is a former beauty pageant queen and hopes to become the next big thing out of Nashville. Marrying a much older D-list actor is certainly one way to do it — although the couple insists that their union is based purely on genuine love.
We wish the happy Courtney Alexis Stodden and Doug Hutchinson good luck in their planned reality TV show
Financial crooks brought down the world’s economy — but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them […]
The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted.
When caught red handed, executives at Goldman Sachs, unaware that their own memos and emails had leaked, blatantly denied their wrong-doings under oath. What are the conclusions?
We need true morality in big world-moving issues.
We need morality in economy and business. Maybe a Western Confucianism.
Profit should come from production, not from financial gambling and fraud
Big fraudsters need to face punishment.
Or maybe the lesson is: Destroy your tracks. Don’t send and keep incriminating emails. When planning to con your own customers, don’t discuss it in writing
Our moral philosophers, religions, churches fail, philosophizing about silly issues like: birth control, the beginning & end of life, sex & possession of child porn
Our churches, moral apostles and philosophers fail miserably. Entire countries get plundered, the world economy gets shattered, currencies are a house of cards waiting to collapse under collective debt. Banks make immoral profits from the world’s miseries. Our moral guides and philosophers are caught up in silly issues like
A Senate committee has laid out the evidence. Now the Justice Department should bring criminal charges
They weren’t murderers or anything; they had merely stolen more money than most people can rationally conceive of, from their own customers, in a few blinks of an eye. But then they went one step further. They came to Washington, took an oath before Congress, and lied about it.
A legal system that allows the financial sector to make huge gains while producing nothing, or worse, destroying the productive economy.
Total dishonesty. Outright fraud. Impunity. Rating institutes that give AAA rating to junk and don’t get punished. Governments that bail out banks instead of letting them pay for their mistakes.
Government and nations borrowing like there is no tomorrow
Why do we feel a compulsion to meddle in other peoples freedom to form whatever form of marriage or sexual relationship they might want to engage in?
Many women would rather be the second (or fifth) wife of an attractive, rich, powerful man like Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt, then the first and only wife of boring, fat, jobless, broke alcoholic Joe Bloke in a Detroit ghetto. Even just being Tiger’s mistress is much more exciting then Joe Bloke. Why does our law restrict the liberty of these women, and of Tiger Woods?
Repression of other people’s sexuality is in the reproductive interest of older married women, of unattractive men. Even vor the successful alpha male it is advantagous to repress sexuality in others, while hypocritically pursuing his own promiscuous sexuality (remember Eliot Spitzer?).
In this post we show that evolutionary theory suggests evolution has created mental modules in our brains to repress sexuality in others, The gut feelings caused by these modules get rationalized into theories that give rise to repressive legislation.
Polygyny in birds
When good males are scarce, a female bird may prefer to become the second mate of a higher quality male with a bigger territory.
mating pattern of certain bird species illustrates what’s known as the "polygyny threshold model," which has to do with how female birds choose a mate in certain complex environments. […]
Is it better to be the only mate of a poorer male or share a better one?
I [a female bird] can either nest with one of the remaining single – but lower quality- males, or I can nest with a [better high quality] male who is already paired, becoming the second female on his [bigger and better] patch. […]
When the payoff to being the second female on a patch is greater then the payoff to being the only mate of an inferior male, there will be polygyny. (Kurzban, pg. 208)
Morality for the birds?
To better understand how evolution could have formed modules for anti-polygyny morality, Kurzban analyzes a hypothetical bird population where moral rules prohibit polygyny. He asks
Which birds stand to gain reproductive advantage when polygyny is prohibited?
"Clearly, female birds already paired with the best male mates will do better. Their mates won’t be able to acquire secondary females whose offspring would compete for the man’s resources." (Kurzban, p 209). Women married with good males have reasons to be feminists. Hillary Clinton only loses if hubby Bill gets entangled with interns. In contrast, Monica Lewinsky probably would have fared very well as Bill Clinton’s second or even fifth wife.
"There’s a natural alliance between monogamously mated females and low quality males because they both gain by enforced monogamy". "low-quality males benefit, since they now might get mates who would otherwise wind up as secondary mates of high-quality males" (Kurzban, p.) In a polygynous animal, primate, or human societies, many low-quality get no wives and no offspring at all. "Low quality males would have a deep, abiding, even crucial interest in rules that force everyone into monogamy" (Kurzban, p 213). Remember, evolution selected for mental modules that gave us reproductive advantage in the EEA, in small groups of hunter-gatherers. It seems that for low quality males, monogamy is the only chance to get a wife, rear offspring and thus have reproductive success! Low quality males that successfully prevent the high quality males from monopolizing multiple females would have considerably more offspring then tolerant open minded men who would remain empty handed while the high quality males would get all the females.
Almost all males "benefit from all other males being monogamous, even if they themselves are not [monogamous]? […] "it’s best to constrain others’ sexual behavior. We’re all in favor of moral rule that prevent others from doing things that harm our own interests, but it is to our advantage to not obey our own rule.
High quality alpha males can profit from imposing monogamy on other males. Powerful males have a better chance to remain unpunished if they violate these rules (at least in birds with no feminist dominated court system)
The losers of polygyny prohibition are un-paired females who have to settle for a lower quality male (‘a loser’) because they are deprived of the freedom to choose to be wife #2 of a high quality male (with better genes, bigger territory, and more resources).
The other losers of enforced monogamy are the "cads" the sexy good looking promiscuous players. They are attractive to women for having good genes, but they can’t win the battle over who brings the most worms. "Without promiscuity, sexy males can’t make the most of what they’ve got." (Kurzban, p. 211).
"Dads, however, win if the sexy males can’t be promiscuous. (They also benefit from keeping their females at home, rather than searching for the good-gene cads)" (p 211) "Dads" are mated male birds that invest in their family and bring home worms for their kids.
We have an "interfere in other people’s private sex life" mental module.
"Humans are extremely social, and our survival and reproduction are determined in large part by how well we navigate the social world. Given this, it’s reasonable to expect that our minds are designed to compete fiercely-if not subtly- for the benefits in the social world: the best mates, the best friends, membership in the best groups, and so on. The outcomes of these competitions would have had massive effects on reproductive success over the course of human evolution."
So birds, mammals, and humans that increase their reproductive success by restricting other people’s sexual access will out-compete the democratic, personal-liberty-respecting tolerant liberal individuals.
We will post more about Kurzban’s theory of the modular mind, and the evolutionary advantages of internal inconsistency, self-deception, hypocrisy to explain this further. But to get a deep understanding one probably needs to read evolutionary literature
Humans have "moralistic modules designed to favor rules that promote their fitness interests".
"The hypothetical birds would vote for policies that prevent others from engaging in sex outside mateships and anything else that goes along with promiscuity. "they probably would not know why they were opposed to these practices. Their decision would be based on the output of certain modules designed to limit other people’s promiscuity. They would be insensitive to arguments about freedom and individual choice, and unaware of being inconsistent. They would probably rationalize this as being ‘pro-family", pro-life. Their resistance against abortion might be based in the desire to punish the females for having sex, and not in the desire to save embryos or in theories about the beginning of life." (Kurzban)
"They might be opposed to abortion -the availability of which by reducing the costs of sex, might well be linked to promiscuity" (Kurzban)
Feminist anti-promiscuity sex laws are also in the reproductive interest of most (hypocritical) males
Study carried out in Czech Republic confirms similar results in Japan and Denmark
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
Amazingly a politically incorrect study made it past the radar and actually got published. We are against dogmatic Human-Stupidity. We favor unbiased free research to find the truth. Human-Stupidity.com is in no way devoted to the goal of defending child pornography for its own sake. BUT
We are apalled that our sex-obsessed judicial system destroys the lives of harmless men
depictions of rioting, killing, lynching, beating adolescents or children to death
depictions of sports accident videos of children
All these are perfectly legal, no matter if this might incite people to imitate and do likewise. And no matter if minors got maimed and killed in production of the video.
Of course, only human-stupidity.com would dare to publish such a scientific result without backpedalling. The mainstream press, scared of the child porn witch hunt climate, has the compulsion to add caveats.
The proposal, by Professor Milton Diamond from the University of Hawaii [to legalise child pornography in a bid to cut the number of child sex abuse cases], follows a study which shows that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was legalised in the Czech Republic. […] The research found that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was more easily accessible. The discovery tallies with similar studies in Denmark and Japan, where child pornography is not illegal, that found incidences of child sex abuse were lower in those countries.
The conclusion of the new study is that ‘artificially-produced’ child pornography should be made available to prevent real children being abused.
The normal press has to instantly counter academic research with the emotionally driven, manipulative unscientific drivel by charities and NGO’s.
But child protection charity NSPCC today said the idea was ‘wrong’.
Chris Cloke, the charity’s NSPCC head of child protection awareness, said: ‘This obscene type of material has no part to play in our society.
‘Many children suffer atrocious abuse in the making of indecent images.
A few states, in a desperate attempt to create obstacles, require ultrasound before abortion. Not for safety, but to show women their fetus, with a heart beating and little arms and feet, to make women feel bad about killing such a little thing, even if it still has no functioning brain or capacity to feel pain. On the other hand, the same conservatives try to shield the agricultural industry, so that unconscious consumers of eggs, or hamburgers, have no awareness of the cruelty towards feeling adult animals involved in the creation of the meal. No pictures of sick caged hens on supermarket egg cartons!Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading » Ultrasound abortion laws, unconscious denial, beef and caged hen eggs » continues here »
A few US states, in a desperate attempt to create obstacles, require ultrasound before abortion. Not for safety, but to show women their fetus, with a heart beating and little arms and feet. To make women feel bad about killing such a little thing, even if it still has no functioning brain, no capacity to feel pain, no conscious will to live.
On the other hand, the same conservatives try to shield the agricultural industry, so that unconscious consumers of eggs, or hamburgers, have no awareness of the cruelty towards feeling adult animals involved in the creation of the meal. No pictures of sick caged hens on supermarket egg cartons or of movies of slaughterhouses at the butcher’s!
The new ultrasound law not only requires the medical procedure, but also requires that women know they have the option to hear a description of what is seen in the ultrasound, to receive a photograph of the ultrasound image and to view the ultrasound.
There is no exception for victims of rape or incest.
The lawsuit argues the ultrasound requirement is “unconstitutionally vague” because it doesn’t explain whether a person performing the ultrasound exam must try to force the woman to accept the envelope containing the photograph. The lawsuit also says it could violate a patient’s right to confidentiality by “exposing their private information to the risk of delivery by third parties.”
During legislative debate, supporters of the new law said they hoped the ultrasounds could dissuade women from getting an abortion by having to learn more about their pregnancies. Opponents said requiring a procedure that might not be available at a free clinic nearby will make it more difficult and costly for women to get
The Center for Reproductive Rights has challenged similar ultrasound laws in other states.
Normally, human-stupidity is in favor of increasing consciousness. Though, this is more about emotional sentimentailsm then about intellectual awareness. We also agree with abortion foes, in that i t would be better if abortions could be avoided. If not by abstinence then responsible sexuality with diligent use of birth control. We think these abortion ultrasound movies should be shown BEFORE women have unprotected sex that gets them pregnant in the first place. Of course, consciousness raising would also require showing movies about the hardship of unwed pregnancies and child rearing.
Now, interestingly, the same conservatives who want to increase women’s consciousness about their fetuses and their abortions, often decry birth control education in school sex ed.
The anti-abortion conservatives also normally back up the meat industry who actively hides their cruel activities from the general populace. The average meat eater would be appalled and turn vegetarian if he were constantly reminded of all the cruelty in industrial caged animal raising and slaughtering. Peter Singer, and many TV stations were consistently denied access to filming US industrial animal farming enterprises.
The more enlightened Christian readers have themselves now recognized that their Church’s preoccupation with sex has been a mistake: Dr George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, has admitted that the church has been guilty of ‘being caught up with the idea that sexual sins were “more significant” then other sins’ and has said that instead we should think more in terms of global problems such as world poverty. […] ethics has no necessary connection with the sexually-obsessed morality of conservative Christianity Peter Singer “How Are We to Live?”
World poverty, corporative greed, dishonesty of politics, culture of violence, school yard bullying. So many real problems require ethics and morality. Real violence, real damage to society and economy caused by moral failures.
But religions obsess with issues like birth control, abortion: “saving” human life of small clusters of cells, while thousands of really alive and breathing humans starve or get killed in wars. Religions cause suffering by prohibiting stem cell research, mandating that embryos can be discarded to waste but can not be used for life saving medical research. Our laws interfere with birth control and HIV prevention. 20 year jail sentences for consensual sex with adolescents or mere possession of nude photos.
There is a reason for this religious obsession with sex. Our holy books, are all around 2000 years old and were not updated.
Sexuality and baby-making were inseparable 2000 years ago
But nowadays, we have birth control. Sexuality is not identical to child production any more. Paternity can be verified with DNA tests and does not require virginity enforced by draconian punishments.
It is funny, though, how churches extrapolate their teachings unto issues that are not covered by the Bible: areas like stem cells, birth control pill, etc. It is also interesting how churches influence politics and legal codes, in countries that have clear separation of church and state.
New ethics and morality are needed.
Merely abandoning religious ethics can lead to crime, greed, moral disorientation. We can observe this in politics, youth violence, obesity, nutrition, corporate (lack of) ethics, general moral disorientation of large parts of the population.Morality & Ethics without God: Peter Singer’s Utilitarianism
Very good overview of Peter Singer’s ethics. Just listen to the audio, the video is not interesting. This is not a single video but a set of videos.
Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Singer is the greatest contemporary exponent of utilitarianism, the doctrine that actions should aim to maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals. Given that our every action has consequences for this end, we are truly immersed in morality.
Peter Singer’s utilitarian philosophy is an alternative to stupidity derived from religious beliefs. Where Richard Dawkins just vaguely surmises about morality without religion, Peter Singer devotes his life to the intricacies of such a morality. As I have stated, the rules from holy books like Bible or Koran were very sensible at the time they were written. But they need overhaul. And, preferably, without resorting to God or Prophets. Peter Singer can come to the rescue.
Dinesh de Souza made the great compliment: Singer’s ethics is what you arrive at with logic and without God: “Peter Singer represents the sharpest, deepest, certainly the most lucid, the most consistent in arguing out the premises and the implications of atheism”.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA is part 1 of a 12 (!) part discussion with Peter Singer. Very interesting to see in its entirety. In part 1 Dinesh gives a fairly good but hostile description of Peter Singer’s philosophy)