Wow, my girl really put Ed's girl in her placeSubmitted by TheKnowingFool on Sat, 12/21/2013 - 15:37
In reply to Ed Ucation's post: http://www.dailypaul.com/308385&from=lbp
So I was reading over Ed's sermon and discussing it with one of my lady friends, and she is a real whizz, nothing gets passed her. I wasn't sure myself about the logic of the post so I ran it by her for her thoughts.
The first point she harped on was where Ed's girlfriend said that because some obese people don't control their weight we should only judge the other one's or none at all or something. That didn't seem sound to me, but what do I know.
Well, she was on that like a pitbull, and said: "Some or even most violent people are predisposed to be violent. Their temperament and impulse control may be poor. People may be born as sociopaths without any empathy for others. Even if they are unable to act on it, the desire is still there.
No one chooses to be born. Just like being born prone to obesity, or homosexuality, a person can also be born prone to being a boastful egomaniac, a bully, a liar, or highly ethnocentric, or prone to disapprove any departures from group behavior norms.
Why should we judge some of these predispositions, but not others? It can't just be about actions. Ed wants us to judge people for their views even where no action is involved, like the bearded duckface guy from TV that people keep talking about.
Why voice disapproval of behaviors that are beyond the control of anyone? Why say anything at all? Everything is determined anyway, no one has any control over anything.
If the principle in question is solely the individual's ability to control or choose otherwise, then on a deterministic view no one can ever make any choice than the precise one they made."
As we read further, it seemed that the OP wasn't really concerned with just the mere fact of choice, but was focused only on specific groups. My lady friend started to pant with anticipation, her brain was purring, and she said:
"It sounds like the OP is really engaging in a kind of muddled, garbled thought process that selectively chooses to apply the 'is it is a choice or not' standard in the case of some groups and not others, and there is some implicit secondary principle used to determine which groups get the rubber stamp, and get to be defended.
That seems to be their status as members of special politically correct groups, which happen to be part of the voting and whining coalition of the left, which generally support more government control, speech control and enjoy manipulating the majority with a truly hateful and sinister kind of collective guilt trip and brainwashing that weakens their whole resolve to stand up and defend their own interests and liberty."
I asked her to elaborate, and she said
"Well, I did not see Ed or his girlfriend worry about any other groups that are routinely insulted and denigrated and mistreated in the public discussion, in popular culture and by law.
For example, the huge levels of discrimination of white males, especially the very poor and underprivileged, in hiring, admittance to schools, government contracts, scholarships, etc.
Or boys in school being mistreated and drugged and then judged for their natural behavior.
Or fathers' rights being trampled over in courts, custody, rights toward their children, and all the pain and misery this causes for millions of fathers and their children.
Or the overall degrading portrayal in the culture of fathers and the free way in which people feel to abuse and insult and mock them.
Or the way large parts of America and many ethnic groups, even other countries, can have their cultures and traditions and even accents mocked and treated like crap and insulted. For example, southerners in America, or Germans and other Europeans, and Arabs and Muslims in popular culture, or even just the common trope of the evil WASP or British accented villain.
These things are far more pervasive and accepted than any similar portrayal of homosexuals or blacks, who seem always to be portrayed as shining beacons of virtue and moral exemplars.
Or how people of specific religious backgrounds can be insulted freely and lied about and misrepresented all throughout the culture, including even on DP (Catholics, Mormons)."
I personally haven't ever seen any actual hate directed at minorities or gays on these forums, and rarely see such a thing in real life in the culture, although it is portrayed plenty in fictional television and movies.
I asked my big brained lady friend to go on and sum up her evaluation of Ed's post with logical precision. She said,
"So to round it out, there seems to be two principles at work aside from mere bias toward defending popular PC groups, probably for the sake of prestige points and status boosting.
If the two principles are applied to everyone and not just selectively (gay, fat), we would have to say no one should ever say anything about any person or group or action that occurred outside of the person's control. On a deterministic view, that would encompass every act or thought. We know Ed is a full on materialistic determinist, so then for him no action could ever be judged. His whole sermon then seems kind of absurd.
If we took a more restrictive view of the principle as applying just to things we might call chosen vs not chosen, then we would have to still extend the coverage of the second principle from fat and gay ("special groups") to all the other groups I mentioned above, who are routinely insulted and even legally abused in our society.
I think Ed's post was just an attempt to dress up political correctness in high sounding moralistic language. Using guilt to try to artificially channel and restrict open discussion of issues, and opinions he doesn't like, into a No-No category. Some views probably make him feel uncomfortable because of fear of being out of step with political correctness. Intellectual insecurity does that.
He may think he is a real rebel and maverick because he doesn't believe in the Big Bang and believes in the Platimum rule instead of the Golden rule (lols I know), but at heart and at bottom he really just sounds like a typical brainwashed modern liberal college student, with a few unorthodox and funny ideas about the viability of anarchism tacked on for fun, like the tail on a donkey.
He hates all of the prescribed groups he's supposed to hate, he uses the right buzzwords, and he seems pretty much in line with the popular zeitgeist."
Ouch. Well, I was done with her so I told her to grab her stuff and get the hell out of my apartment.
On a personal note, I don't know if Ed is routinely rude and mean to fat people, and maybe he is. If he is, he needs to examine his conscience, and find away to make that right.
I know my conscience is clear toward all people, and when it isn't, I rectify it, I don't give a moral sermon to others.
What I never do is try to artificially construe opinions of others into a newspeak word like "hate," when the views are not at all hostile or hateful (like the bearded fool's from the Duck cooking show). I would never engage in the manipulative use of language or lame ploys to guilt others with the weight of popular political correctness religion.
I haven't myself ever observed any hostility toward such groups on DP, and would like some examples.
More to the point, there are lots of free choices don't infringe on the rights of others. Like becoming morbidly obese, having s3x with your domestic partners on the front lawn, smoking meth until you die, or killing animals for fun, or stepping over dead bodies on the line to pick up your take out fried chicken. If we can never judge any act that isn't a "choice" or which is, but doesn't "violate someone's rights," then we end up in Bedlam.
Ed would like us to not even be permitted to have our standards in our own private lives.
In such a worldview, violence should be controlled only as a matter of public safety, but nothing ought ever be judged, as it is merely determined by the person who never sought to be born anyway and probably was predisposed to his acts.
We should never teach that anything is wrong, or live according to such outmoded ideas. We should just put up tons of cameras and have lots and lots of police everywhere at all times to idiot-proof, violence-proof and pen off all the moral abominations we have spawned as a result of teaching such nonsense. And that is what we're doing.
Let's breed a world of evil, not judge, and then when it comes to maturity, pen it off from our little liberty playpen, and wait til the evil is at the door. When it is, we will inform it that what it is about to do is not according to the non aggression principle, and that it would infringe on our rights, and hope for the best.