[-A Solution To Capital Punishment Immorality?-]

I can tell you right now that the death penalty does not personally bother me. I believe that if people are going to commit crimes such as murder, (in most circumstances,) and rape, they have forfeited their lives.

But even in my original post about the prison system, I circumvented most instances of the death penalty with my chain of “employment”. Criminals would only be put to death if they simply refused to work. After watching an interesting documentary, (it might have been a Nova, but I’m not certain. I tend to watch a lot of docus,) I considered whether or not a different idea would be more “moral”.

Scientists are learning how to wipe people’s memories. Wiping someone’s memory destroys their learned personality - the nurture part of their psyche. Used on criminals as a form of rehabilitation, if those individuals became criminals because of their life experience, they could be relocated, given new identities, (so that they didn’t automatically get mixed up with the same problems,) and given a new chance at life.

Logically, theists who believe in an after life should love this idea. The person’s still alive, soul intact, so no harm, right? God’ll figure out what to do with them when they die, or He can take them out if he wants to. As an atheist, I wonder if this isn’t nearly the same as killing them. The new person is a different person entirely. However, more or less I consider that, although the consciousness doesn’t remember, it’s still the same one. It gets confusing, obviously, but Hell, it’s an idea.

[-Babies Are Atheists: Arguing Over Semantics-]

I recently viewed a video by one of my favorite Youtube Atheists - MeridianFrost - where he was more or less replying to a video made by a different YT Atheist, BionicDance. I have not seen the video he was replying to, but it seems to be a sequel where she backs up what she said in a previous video that I did watch. (I might be wrong on this, but it is not terribly relevant to the entry.) I commented on this video months ago with a gentle proposition, (and I mean that I was sincerely polite and made no absolute comments,) and she responded quite aggressively, with no room for thought or compromise, often attacking points I did not make.

I ended up “arguing” with those commenting on Meridian’s video as well. Arguing is in quotes because I really was just stating facts rather than taking much of a side. I was trying to level the playing field, trying to make them understand that most of them weren’t arguing for a moral position but rather one of semantics.

Are Babies Atheists?

Yes and no. It depends on the definition of “atheist” that you look at. The word is in severe flux. Etymologically, atheism means “Without Theism (Belief in God)”, but most dictionaries currently list the definition as the far more aggressive “disbelief in all god(s)” or “a position that says there is no god(s)” or something similar. Rather than simply lacking the belief, which anyone who is not a theist does, this definition implies active participation in the thought process and an actual assertion on the part of the atheist.

The first definition is for weak, or negative, atheism. I also consider this agnostic atheism, though many will disagree*. Most atheists that I am aware of are weak atheists, at least toward a very broad concept of a “god” of some sort, as they see no evidence for a god but do not state that there is absolutely not one. Most of us take the Occam’s Razor approach - why substitute a complicated explanation when there is already a valid, simple, natural one? It’s *possible* that a thief came in through your open first-story window in the middle of the day and stole your cat, but it’s more likely your cat decided to leave the house - unless other factors or evidence to contradict that simpler explanation present themselves.

Strong, or positive, atheists make the assertion that there is no god(s).

*Agnosticism is even more all-over-the-place when it comes to a definition than atheism is, especially since, when combined with atheism, categories overlap greatly. Someone can claim to be only an agnostic, but it’s more than likely that they’ll fit in to some category of atheist or theist. A person who believes there is probably a god one day and not another day doesn’t have to be considered a pure agnostic - they are simply an agnostic theist one day and an agnostic atheist the next. Someone who doesn’t give a damn can be considered an apathiest , but, under some definitions, apatheism can still fall under either atheism or theism, (but usually atheism.) Apatheism says “Whether there is a god(s) or not, even if it’s proven one way or another, it doesn’t change anything.”

*An agnostic theist believes that there probably is a god, but they do not claim it is a certainty.

* An agnostic atheist believes there is probably no god or simply sees no reason to believe in a god but does not claim it as certainty.

Agnosticism to me seems more useful as a modifier. To me, it would be like asking someone what they are wearing and them telling me “blue”. (Yes, I do this *all the time*, especially to strangers.) It’s accurate, but it’s not very specific… and people who use the term often use it to mean something very specific and assume that everyone else holds the same definition.

Atheism is most commonly split up between agnostic/weak/negative and strong/positive, but agnosticism is also divided into more specific categories, the two main being “strong” and “weak” once again.

*A weak agnostic says “We can’t know whether or not a god(s) exists right now, but maybe we’ll be able to find out in the future.”

*A strong agnostic says “We can’t know whether or not a god(s) exists *ever*.”

There are more, yes, but this entry could go on forever. Moving on…

George Smith, a Liberian and atheist writer, (author of Atheism: The Case Against God,) coined the terms Implicit and Explicit Atheism. Implicit atheism refers to when there is a lack of belief but no conscious rejection. In other words, by the only definition of this term, babies are implicit atheists. Atheists that are aware that they lack belief or disbelieve are explicit atheists. All implicit atheists are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are implicit atheists.

All of this, everything up there, is semantic, and it was, by far, most of the arguing that was going on. It does not help that most of the atheists I have personally seen on YT stress the “lack of belief in all deities” definition of atheism over the “disbelief in all deities” definition that is far more common in dictionaries. I’m not surprised about the repetitive arguments that ensue.

So, in conclusion, yes, babies are atheists - weak and implicit atheists specifically. Whether this matters worth a damn or not will be the topic of a future post. Remember, kids: If you’re going to argue about something, don’t be afraid to do a little research. Language is messy, and it evolves, and just like biological evolution, parts can be re-purposed and a lot of useless crap gets through.

[-Gender Identity is BS-]

Often, people who place themselves in these categories, are activists in sexual equality. I, myself, used to number among them, considering myself “bigendered”, before really breaking it down and finding that, by saying I was bigendered, I wasn’t saying much, but at the same time I was feeding the ideas that I was trying to fight - the idea that it *mattered*. Here I will state how I feel about these “gender” roles hopefully without ranting pointlessly on the topic.

“Gender” has a lot of definitions which are constantly evolving, so it’s difficult to pin down what it is.

I find “sex” to be a more suitable word for what we physically are, denoted by our chromosomes. If you have a penis and no vagina, you‘re a male. If you have a vagina and no penis, you‘re a female.  If you have a combination going on down there, you‘re intersexual. It has nothing to do with what you wear, how much you can lift, how much you cry during romantic comedies, or your tendency to be dominant or submissive.

“Gender”, for me, is entirely a social construct, one that, in my “humble” opinion, is about as useful as Christianity. It tells individuals what they should be based on, but unrelated, to their pieces. I have yet to find a single mental characteristic in anyone that seems to be along the “gender roles” that could not be explained by societal influence. Feel free to challenge me on this, as I could be incorrect, but of the documentaries I’ve watched, they’ve mostly stated that there is very little difference in our brains. Young boys were shown to have slightly better spatial skills and girls were shown to be slightly better in language, but with equal education, these minor difference vanished quickly. Additionally, in studies done where a male was raised as a stereotypical female, believing he was a girl, he had no issues with “gender identity”. So unless he just happened to be that rare transgendered male, this demonstrates that children are, at least mostly, whatever they are raised to be. Nature exists, but nurture is stronger.

If these people who identify as “transgendered” or “transsexual” or any of the variety of genders out there that are something other than male or female want to win the equality war, they should simply drop the titles and realize that it doesn’t matter how they act. It would be like blacks arguing that they were different than whites based on more than their skin color and spouting that as pro-equal rights propaganda. But they don’t. The only thing different about a black individual is their skin color. Everything else that has happened to them as a race is because of what prejudice has done to quite a lot of them. Society fucked them, and I firmly believe it will be a while before they manage to crawl into true equality. Let’s drop the titles when there is no meaning to them.


Preferences are just that, but some are harder to change:

Look at the following scenario: You have a man that defines himself as gay. He is not sexually attracted to redheads, and he also finds people who are underweight to be unattractive. So, here we have three preferences for sexual attractiveness: Not too skinny, not a redhead, and not female. Some of these might be more predominant than others, but they really are just preferences. …And yes, scientists say they think “gay” is genetic, and that’s fine. A lot of preferences are ingrained.

Now, here is a question, and I am sincerely curious of the answer. Let’s pretend magic exists for a moment here. If you fell in love with someone, (of your sexual preference,) and their sex suddenly changed, would you cease your sexual relationship with them? I understand that your preference is on the genetic level, but we as humans have a lot of ability to change, even neurologically. My answer would be, “It would be bothersome at first, but I would retain the relationship; love is not so shallow.” However, I am not an appropriate person to answer this question, because I am bisexual. I much prefer men, but when it comes to love, I don’t put up many boundaries. The only thing that really denotes my “preferences” as far as allowing myself to fall in love, (as much as that can be allowed,) is my moral code.

WTF insurance:

Sex changes are covered by Canadian health insurance… because having more of the qualities of what society has claimed a female is and being really depressed about it is a medical condition that’s important to treat.

And yet, my fiance can’t get a general practitioner and hasn’t had one for years. When he goes to a clinic, he waits there for hours, (sometimes not even getting in before they close,) only to be told that he needs to see someone else for the issue or is given a prescription he can’t afford and sent home.

If we slaughtered gender roles, would these men and women still need to change their junk to stop their depression?  I think if therapists started advocating, “there isn’t a damned differences” rather than reinforcing these roles, we’d have fewer depressed people who feel they need to hide things about themselves unless they get some fake tits and hormone injections.

Will I ever put my son in a dress?:

Probably not, at least not to school. (I will now, as he is a baby.) Unfortunately, even as someone who hates gender roles, I still have to conform to them somewhat, even if I stretch them. Personally, for me, I don’t hide anything. Females have it easier there - we might be “picked on”, but we can pretty much do whatever we want, dress however we want, and it still fits into some accepted stereotype of women, (at least in this society.) Tomboys are not uncommon. Guys, on the other hand, have to deal with being insulted constantly if they show their emotions. And why wouldn’t I put my son in a dress? To save him from the embarrassment of these fucked up societal rules. Hopefully, we’ll keep stretching the rules gradually until they break. After all, there was a time before pants were even invented. Some guys look good in dresses. Some girls don’t. Proper grooming can do a lot.

Fighting being female:

I used to try to be as “male” as possible when I believed in gender roles. I hated being classified as a girl, and all the dogma that accompanied it, so I denied all “girl” activities that I liked. But, like I said, this isn’t how the fight for equality needs to be undertaken. We all need to accept all parts of ourselves, not placing those traits into categories based on our genitalia. I like to cook, play video games, sew, rough house, look at naked women in provocative positions, decorate my surroundings, take care of my children, roleplay, have sex, garden (and other yard work,) woodwork, draw, write, and an immense amount of other things. I prefer pants, as I hate undergarments, but dresses don’t bother me like they used to, because I’m not fighting anything. They can be quite comfortable. Hell, peacocking is fine with me, too, as long as there is no set sex-based standard.

So that sums up my rant for today. Hopefully I’ll have something more insightful and organized next time.

[-A Brief on Objective & Subjective Morality & the Prison System-]

First, I’d like to define the main terms I’m dealing with so as to minimize confusion.

Something is objective if it’s based on facts and uncorrupted by bias.

Something is subjective is it’s based on opinions, and is thus far more malleable.

Something is moral if it relates to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

The main definition of “right” equates it to something that is “good”, and “good” is defined as having favorable characteristics or tendencies, righteous, being without disease, etc.  I took the definitions all the way down to “good”, because good is the closest we get to an objective word. It still isn’t entirely, but it’s closer than “right” or “moral”.

We can say that, for example, with no other information on the matter present, cancer is not “good”. Rape is not “good”.  Torture is not “good”.

However, because many other factors will always be present, everything is some amount of good and bad. The key is in weighing those factors. Also, not every situation, or every person, is worthy of the same treatment, and if we were to neglect retribution, denouncing it as immoral because it does cause harm, (and therefore is not “good” at its core”,) then our entire justice system would be immoral. It can be assumed that the amount of “bad” would increase substantially if we did not include justice within our moral code.

This is my personal basis for a moral code: The entire spectrum between harm and help is one side, and the other is justice, preferably in a beneficial form.

I take this template and apply it to everything I do. Yes, it is subjective, but I base my opinions as much on facts as I am able. …And of course it is not a perfect science.

I don’t find this a confusing system to start with, despite that weighing is almost always somewhat subjective. The most important thing to do when attempting to utilize it is to rid yourself as much as possible of any predispositions. If you subconsciously have a predestination in mind for the morality answer, (such as a holy book,) you’re going to ruin your chances at getting the most objective answer.

Now, I’d like to write a bit about “side 2” of my moral system. I’d like to state a few things here before I really get into what role I think justice should play. I am an advocate of the death penalty and slavery, but I typically do not agree with torture.

Currently, when someone commits a crime, they are sent to a facility to be locked up for a time determined by their crime. Let’s say, for example, that an individual is sent to prison for 20 years and they are currently 20 years old. They need food, shelter, security, healthcare, (as prisoners have it automatically,) and utilities as a base, and, of course, if they are released without a sufficient amount of money, they will more easily revert back to crime. Additionally, prison does not have the effect of rehabilitating anyone. For that, counseling is needed. Educational advancement is also often offered.

I do not know the exact numbers, but it does cost more than most of us (and our spouses, if we have them,) will ever make in our lifetimes to keep someone in prison for their life. My step-father and brother both work in the prison system, and my father did as well before he died. Occasionally, prisoners will do some form of work, but it is fairly rare. Companies sue, claiming that business is being taken away from them, and the prisoners end up idling in their cells, soaking up tax dollars that could otherwise be going toward improving schools, community activities, etc… I am a large advocate of “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. Vulcans know their shit. This ideal is far more important to me than economic freedom.

Either we spend vast quantities on cash on prisoners to do nothing but be fed, get healthcare, (which they often utilize by stabbing themselves just to get out of their cells for a while,) have free shelter, etc, and let the rich owners of manufacturing companies run amok with our ideals of freedom… Or we can set up prisons as manufacturing companies, and work those prisoners for 8-12 hours a day. Many low-income individuals have to work that much merely to get by, and many of them do not have healthcare.

Most of this money goes to paying for the prisoners’ costs. Some of it goes to pay the victim(s) of the crime, (if there was any.) If the criminal’s jail time is temporary, then the rest goes in to a fund they can use when they are released, (or will be automatically used to pay for an apartment in a government-run apartment building until they find a job outside of prison.) If the system is very profitable, the rest of the money can be filtered back into the economy, into healthcare and education, both areas that, if they were improved, would reduce the amount of children who become criminals.

When someone is placed in to prison, it’s said that they are “paying their debt to society”, but it’s actually quite the opposite right now.

Anyone who is forced to work is a slave, so any prisoner who is forced to work while in prison is a slave, which is why I had to say that I agree with slavery.

Now, let’s look at the system that’s been developed here. What if a criminal refuses to work? Imagine a multi-tiered system of available prison jobs, from working in a greenhouse for 8 hours a day, (for minor crimes,) to cooking in the cafeteria to 12 hour factory jobs for the worst offenders. Additionally, minor offenders have access to education, therapy, and recreational programs. Now say that anyone can move up and down the scale based on behavior, and their sentence can even change, (in the negative.) Good behavior and hard work gets better working conditions, but if a prisoner refuses to work, they get bumped down the scale, and their sentence gets extended, as we have to consider the safety and productivity of society as a whole, and an individual like that would be almost entirely detrimental if released.

The end of the line, however, is death. Someone who refuses to be a part of society should not remain a burden and should be put out of everyone’s misery. This is what is better for society as a whole. Also, consider that this person knew the consequences, and so he chose his fate quite openly. I think, if we had this system, there would be no need for the death penalty for anyone who cooperated. I never see strictly punishment as beneficial to anyone, and therefore it is immoral by my standards. I believe in restitution.

I will write many more posts on how I apply my moral system to various topics, (especially since this focused more on the principle of restitution over simple punishment, rather than weighing “good” and “bad” on a moral scale,) but I hope this has given a decent introduction.

If you see anything that is blatantly incorrect, (as we are all flawed,) merely point it out and direct me to some evidence. I am not above editing posts and crediting others for their assistance.