What Is Morally Unacceptable?

Below is an email I got this morning in reference to the different posts done here in regards to mainstream commercial religion and how fear is used to suppress us as individuals worldwide. As it is always mentioned, what I write is my opinion, I’m not in the business of changing minds or changing the opinions of others, there are allot of common denominators at work here. Yes, the word censorship gets thrown around about as much as freedom of speech, yet both work hand in hand everywhere we look. Look at this blog, I get asked to “tone” it down every day which requires me to only ramp it up that much more.

—- Begin Email & Response —-

Scorpion Sting– Was the aim of your different posts not to ridicule and play off people’s fears and prejudices about mainstream commercial religion? What was the point? It is not that it is morally unacceptable to cause offence to other cultures as you once said, but the how and why are just as important as the right to cause that offence. I agree with you that the fear of consequences has become a limitation, but that is perhaps because free speech has been abused by people just like you, don’t you think? R.S.

R.S. — I regard free speech as a fundamental good, the fullest extension of which is necessary for our very democratic life and for the development of other liberties. Others view speech as a luxury rather than as a necessity, or at least as merely one right among others, and not a particularly important one. Speech from this perspective needs to be restrained not as an exception but as the norm.

The answer to whether religious and cultural sensibilities should ever limit free expression depends upon which of these ways we think of free speech. For those, like me, who look upon free speech as a fundamental good, no degree of cultural or religious discomfort can be reason for censorship. There is no free speech without the ability to offend religious and cultural sensibilities.

For those for whom free speech is more a luxury than a necessity, censorship is a vital tool in maintaining social peace and order. Perhaps the key argument made in defence of the idea of censorship to protect cultural or religious sensibilities is that speech must necessarily be less free in a plural society. In such a society, so the argument runs, we need to police public discourse about different cultures and beliefs both to minimise friction and to protect the dignity of individuals, particularly from minority communities. If people are to occupy the same space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.

But, I take the opposite view. It is precisely because we do live in a plural society that we need the fullest extension possible of free speech. In such societies it is both inevitable and important that people offend the sensibilities of others. Inevitable, because where different beliefs are deeply held, clashes are unavoidable. And they should be openly resolved, rather than suppressed in the name of “respect” or “tolerance”.

But more than this: the giving of offence is not just inevitable, but also important. Any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply-held sensibilities. Or to put it another way: “You can’t say that!” is all too often the response of those in power to having their power challenged. The notion that it is wrong to offend cultural or religious sensibilities suggests that certain beliefs are so important that they should be put beyond the possibility of being insulted or caricatured or even questioned. The importance of the principle of free speech is precisely that it provides a permanent challenge to the idea that some questions are beyond contention, and hence acts as a permanent challenge to authority. The right to “subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism” is the bedrock of an open, diverse society, and the basis of promoting justice and liberties in such societies. Once we give up such a right we constrain our ability to challenge those in power, and therefore to challenge injustice.

The question we should ask ourselves, therefore, is not “should religious and cultural sensibilities ever limit free expression?” It is, rather, “should we ever allow religious and cultural sensibilities to limit our ability to challenge power and authority?” S.S.

——– End Email & Response ———

I tend to have a healthy respect for flirting with disaster. Life it self is a double edged sword for those of us with differing opinions, it is what it is. What I dislike about our society is the repeated trend that their must be silent voices on one side so we do not offend others offending us. It is a one way street for the easily offended. I made the choice not to travel on this street no longer, people will be offended because people are taught that someone else’s opinion isn’t relevant. I don’t want to, personally, silence the opinions of others, I just want to be free to have and express my own opinions. I would like to thank R.S. for the email, I hope that our debate has allowed us both to walk away better people.

Do You Think Unicorns Ever Existed?

OK, so I’m a grown man who takes an interest in things that everyone claims do not exist because of the lack of hard evidence. There is a large, long winded list of things that are said to only exist in a person’s imagination. Anyway, I came across a report which claims they actually found the fossil remains of a unicorn and it got me thinking about how one person’s proof ends up usually what fuels it all being discredited, because that’s what we hard headed humans do, we don’t believe shit. A unicorn is a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.  Any type of horse with a horn could be considered a Unicorn. Is it true or false that a horse with a horn is more likely to exist than say a sasquatch? No, I’m not bashing the sasquatch either, I would like for it to become more than myth and legend as well. But, here we are now, so we have to ask ourselves the question “can horses have horns”?

There are documented archaeological digs where unicorn skeletons have been found. Whether or not this is an actual unicorn or just a horse with a horn is not hasn’t been determined. Even if it was a horse with a horn by definition, this is labeled a unicorn. There was actually a skeleton of a horse with a horn found near the vicinity of Quedlinburg near Mount Zeunikenberg. The actual statement claims this:

“Fossil unicorn; in Latin, unicornu fossile . Some authors have given this name to a bony substance, similar to ivory or to a twisted horn covered with spirals, that is found, although rarely, within the earth. Mr. Gmelin, in his Siberian voyage, believes that these are fish teeth. He reports that in 1724, one of these horns was found beneath the earth, in the territory of Yakutsk, in Siberia; he assumes that it does not belong to the mythical animal to which the nameunicorn has been given; but he believes, and it is very likely, that it comes from the cetacean animal that is called narwhal . The same author speaks of another horn of the same kind that was found in 1741, in swampy terrain in the same country: however, he observes that the narwhal that is commonly found in the seas of Greenland, does not exist in the Arctic Ocean, which borders the North of Siberia. 

What would seem to cast doubt on this matter is a fact reported by the illustrious Leibnitz in his Protogoea ; following the account of the famous Otto Guericke, he says that in 1663, someone pulled from a limestone quarry at Mount Zeunikenberg, in the territory of Quedlinberg, the skeleton of a terrestrial quadruped crouched on its hind parts, but on which the head was raised, and which sported on its forehead a horn of five ells, that is to say approximately ten feet in length and as thick as the leg of a man, but ending in a point. This skeleton was broken by the ignorance of the workers and pulled piece by piece from the ground; only the horn and the head remained whole, as well as some ribs, and the spine; these bones were brought to the abbess-princess of Quedlinberg. Mr. de Leibniz provides in this same work the image of this skeleton. He says on this subject that according to the report of Hyeronimus Lupus and Balthasar Tellez, Portuguese authors, a quadruped the size of a horse, on which the forehead is armed with a horn, exists in the land of the Abyssinians. See Liebnitz, Protogoea, pages 63 and 64 . In spite of all these authorities, it is maddening that the skeleton of which Leibniz speaks was not more carefully examined, and there is every reason to believe that that horn really belonged to a fish.

One must not confuse the horn or the bony substance of which it is here a question with another earthy, calcareous, and absorbent substance that some authors have very improperly called unicornu fossile , and that, based on appearances, is a kind of chalk or marl.”

This report can be seen at The Encyclopedia Of Diderot & d’Alembert and shows that there could actually have been unicorns that existed and has fossils to prove it, even removing the fact that this is one of many skeletons that could have been discovered the odds of them existing are still higher than that of a sasquatch.

We all know the process of evolution is a long and in depth process. Yes, I’m one of those kinds of people, I strongly agree that evolution exists in every species on our great planet Dirt. Things like speciation and adaptation contribute to how evolution works. Think of it using this example I have prepared for y’all. Let’s label species (a) horses and they are a specific type of horse breed that exist only in desert climates.

So now lets say (a) exist in environment (y). The entirety of (a) exists within (y). (Y) is any possible desert climate. (y) experiences some type of disaster, and (a) must now leave (y). (a) is now split into different regions around (y). Half of (a) now exists in (x) the other half exists in (z). These are two separate climates. Now at the initial split the horse species is still the same initial species in itself. Now lets say environment (z) is more of a rocky terrain and one half of (a) is not use to this but still live here. Over thousands of years randoms variations in their species will occur to help them survive in that specific environment.  So over the course of 100’s and 1,000’s of years the horse species that live in (x) is still predominately the same as before but the half that exist in (z) has evolved into a different type of species due to adaption and environmental changes. They are now called deltahorse.

Now lets say the half of (a) that exist in (z) have a rock they are allergic to, or get rashes from. They usually itch on their head, so to solve this problem they rub their head on other rocks to stop the itch. Over 1000’s of years there head could become sharp and pointy and eventually shape up to become a horn. This is just a random possibility and I’m not a scientist so we will just roll will my logic here. Note, almost anything is possible, and we see genetic mutations in evolution all the time that are bizarre to us but they happened for specific reasons. So this is a viable possibility even if it may not be likely. The fact is though, stranger things have happened during the course of species evolution.

If a horse is born with a deformity such as a horn, it would still be labeled a unicorn. I mean again this is possible, there are women that are living with 3 boobs and even guys with 2 penises. What could the reasons be for that? Freaks of nature? So, a deformity or mutation in a horse that let’s them grow a horn from their head is plausible. I’m not saying that they ever have or actually exist, nor am I trying to convince y’all of anything, I’m just saying its an interesting concept.

Do “You” Think Animals Have A Face?

I use the word “you” as a practical way of asking the question because “we” really doesn’t apply in this particular case. Before we begin, eventhough many of you will become offended, it isn’t my actual intent when opening this subject up for a real discussion. I’m not looking to sway any opinions as everyone has their own opinions for their own reasons. I write about this topic today because it has become somewhat of a sore spot with me because of some emails and comments I have received over the last week. Seems people have dug and found newer reasons to give me grief for the way I live my life personally. Through out this post I want y’all to keep referring to the picture at the top of the post. Yes, I understand that only about 2%-3% of the visitors to this blog actually read what has been written, I have learned to accept that fact. Even fewer comment which is why I often refer to my blog as monologuing instead of interactive. With that being said I should probably begin to say what I want to say.

Do “you” think animals have a face was the title to this post because I am curious as to what makes a person say that animals have a face. As you might be able to tell, I don’t think that way. Many times I have looked for the written word of any animal who thinks it has a face or an account where an animal was documented stating it had a face. You know I will always come up very empty handed, no matter what. Having a face is a human thing, we humans tell ourselves and other humans we have a face and maybe even what it looks like here and there. I personally know people who associate animals with having faces and I have asked them why as well. Some people have conditioned themselves into this association for one reason or many reasons. No, I do not try to understand the reasons why and one could say I am real closed minded on the subject. I find it a very bizarre behavior when people refer to animals as having a face.

So, where am I going with this post? Well, I have been getting a borage of comments/emails about how wrong I am for hunting and how wrong I am for being a gun owner. Two opinions I respect and appreciate but also disagree with as well. My reasons are neither your business nor your concern. I don’t need to justify nor defend hunting or owning guns and I will not. I do with my life what I do with my life. I’m not here to have an argument with anyone. I will pass on free advice which can be applied to almost anything in life. If you don’t like it then don’t do it, don’t be around it, and don’t have it in your personal life. But, back to thinking animals have faces and how I am an evil bastard for killing them, cooking them, and consuming then. Since that is what has been said. I won’t be sorry that I am a meat eater, I won’t be sorry I own guns, and I won’t be sorry for hunting. Most of all I will not be sorry if you are offended because of any of it. When I hunt it is to put food on the table and not for a trophy. People who know me in person know this fact and some people who visit here insert their assumptions based on their feelings but not what has been written.

People have faces. Plants and animals do not have faces. I am an omnivore, I enjoy eating bother plants and animals. I refer y’all to the picture at the top now, is it a picture of a human, an animal, or a plant. Since I am the only one who 100% knows then you have to 100% rely on what I know. If you choose not to rely on my words then you will guess and assume you know the answer. My point is simple, y’all want to associate known human elements into to what should be rational thoughts, but pieces of the puzzle are missing. What to do? Indeed. Just remember something for me, guilt doesn’t work because I have nothing to feel guilty about, except for the raspberry filled pastry I had for breakfast, since it is in the forbidden list and off limits to a diabetic like me. I guess my goal is to die happy and not pissed at the world because everyone has a different opinion.

When ten people nicely ask about the picture I will reveal to y’all the truth and the answer.

Kuwait Uses “Gaydar” To Keep Out LGBT

If you have been keeping up with international news you just might have seen the little tidbits offered about Kuwait implementing “gaydar” to keep LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual, and Transgender) out of their country. Other countries in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Countries) that include Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates already deem homosexual acts as unlawful. Health centers conduct the routine medical check to assess the health of the  expatriates when they come into the GCC countries. However, they are taking  stricter measures that will help them detect gays who will be then barred from  entering Kuwait or any of the GCC member states. And did you know that It’s illegal to be gay in 78 countries, with  lesbianism banned in 49. Five countries mete out the death penalty to gay people, those being Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Mauritania.

• Iran:  Since 1979, the government has executed more than 4,000 people charged with  homosexual acts. A non-adult who engages in consensual sodomy is subject to a  punishment of 74 lashes.
• Saudi  Arabia: Although the maximum punishment for homosexuality is execution,  the government tends to use other punishments – such as fines, prison sentences,  and whipping – unless it feels that homosexuals have challenged state authority  by engaging in social movements.
• Sudan: For homosexual men, lashes are given  for the first offence, with the death penalty following the third offence. 100  lashes are given to unmarried women who engage in homosexual acts. For lesbian  women, stoning and thousands of lashes are the penalty for the first offence.
• Yemen: Homosexuality is still illegal in Yemen  in accordance to the country’s Shari’a legal system. Punishment ranges from  flogging to death.
• Mauritania: The Shari’a law applies in  Mauritania. The penal code states that, since 1983, any adult Muslim caught engaging in an ‘unnatural act’ with a member of the same sex is punishable with  the death sentence by public stoning.

This warped plan comes from Kuwait’s director of public health, Yousuf Mindkar. The clinical screens are meant to make sure the foreigners entering the Arab countries are healthy. But Mindkar wants to use them as an opportunity to crack down harder on what’s been seen as a troublesome rise in the country’s gay population. Theoretically, the health officials in Kuwait could distil this practice and other similar research findings into a science-inspired gay detection screening process. But the accuracy rate would be far from proficient, and leaps and bounds away from the level of proof sufficient to ban someone from entering the country. We don’t even have to look to the East for examples of homophobic immigration law. For 22 years the United States tried to screen out HIV-positive foreigners which could be considered a form of gay discrimination. Meanwhile, Kuwait’s gaydar plan is set to be debated at the Gulf Cooperation Countries committee meeting next month. It will be interesting to see if the committee gives the proposal the green light, and even more interesting to find out how Mindkar proposes to pull it off. Unfortunately, wherever the gay detector falls in the spectrum between asking someone if they like sports or analyzing their facial width-to-height ratio, it won’t be the first time history has used soft science to justify a kind of witch hunt rooted in fear and hatred. And those never ended very well in the past.

Everything I have read about or seen on the television about Kuwait and the GCC using supposed scientific tests to ban people from entering one of the countries has sent red flags right up my WTF flag pole. As a serving member of the United States Air Force (active duty) I was stationed in the Gulf region in the country of Kuwait as well as visiting Bahrain for r & r. As an American, used to American culture, I witness first hand, what appeared to me, as unethical treatment to human beings. That’s not seeing things as only a foreigner to the county but as a human being. Who gives a flying fuck what a person’s sexual orientation or their sexual preference is. I wonder why we haven’t seen any WBC (Westboro Baptist Church) support for Kuwait and the GCC. Maybe the WBC has been banned from those countries as well. Neither here nor there, it just seems like there are countries who wish to alienate themselves from others in the world. I would think this would affect their income from international travels no matter their orientation. Anyway, just wanted to pass on some international bullshit news that struck me as worthy to put here.

As a housekeeping note, the 3, count them 3, pictures were borrowed from 3 different sources found publicly on the world-wide web using a Google search. They don’t belong to me or this blog and were, at the time of posting, considered to be free to use in the public domain. If 1 or all of the pictures belong to you or your organization just inform me and I will remove them with haste.