Apendage

     It is always interesting how fascist states employ nationalism and patriotism so readily when in power. The symbolism of the solder and their valiant struggle against the dangers of the nation and the unruly agitators who threaten to deteriorate the national consensus and the cohesion that is advertised by the state and the powerful interests who wish such a thing be thought and maintained in the public psyche. I notice, often, how the advertisement of the 'strength' of the state is often advertised as the definition of patriotism. The unified unwavering uniformed troops, police, and guard, all standing stoic and strong, like a wall protecting the public from the insidious intimidation of the evils of the 'other' a mysterious force whose malevolence but waits out beyond the border to pounce upon and destroy our mystical 'freedoms' that, seemingly, only exist within the boundaries of the state; no other country has, or wants, the freedoms we have, they are jealous, they want to destroy us, but no one outside even has what we have. A curious observation.

     The truth of the matter, like it or not, seems to be that the reformers and fighters for progress seemingly are never the uniformed wall of stoicism, rather, the agitators who are being walled off. The struggle of the protester, the downtrodden, the worker, the weak, they are not considered patriotic symbols to admire and enjoy; this is the uniqueness of communist ideology, advertising the people, as they are, as symbols of patriotism and human cohesion. It is therefore not surprising that the capitalist enterprise seizes the imagery of the state to clock itself in the flags of the countries they inhabit. The people are taught to feel patriotism when they see the colors, when they see the soldier, the police, the guard, whatever image of authority that is lauded most, and so the corporate state adopts similar colors, they claim to be patriotic, they make those in uniform feel special by offering discounts and acknowledgment; and we notice that labor day is more and more ignored, the workers and the people who aren't soldiers, they are pushed farther and farther to the margins.

     But the soldier, the police, the guard, what pity should we bestow on them? All, much, if not more. Not for their perceived position of authority, no, rather for their actual place of value to the system they protect and enforce. The soldier is a very expendable piece of equipment to the system, yet a valuable piece none the less. In the global game of market chess, the war for resources and dominance of position, the soldier is the saddest pawn to be pushed forward in the game of profit driven capitalism. Wars are waged to 'open' markets, or to keep markets 'open', but they are waged for such things more often than not. When the soldier suits up, we should look at that uniform more as a sacrificial burial shroud rather than anything else. They wear it for the profit, defense, and expansion of whatever interest wished they fight, whatever interest wished they kill; for each death, be it their own, or another's life taken by them, is a sacrifice to the god of the market. Capitalism demands profits, profits at any cost, and blood is but one of the many costs incurred.

     This is the tragedy of the solder, many join for noble reasons, others for a solid form of employment; as more and more reasonable jobs are disappearing. But, as they discover, or fail to, they are to be used as pawns for a global economic game of chess over resources that never benefit their families, never help their countrymen and only harm the world and their fellow humans. Solders are, in many ways, the biggest victims of capitalism, they are the ones who oil the gears with their blood, they pay the price the capitalists won't pay to keep their beloved markets open. I wish more solders knew, I wish more understood how they were being used, but sadly, like most people, the complexity of the system and the grind of our daily lives distracts them and disheartens them.

     Should we see soldiers as symbols of patriotism, no, I believe that seeing them as symbols dehumanizes them; soldiers, police, the guard, they must be seen, not as appendages of the state, but rather as unwitting participants in a game they didn't sign up for. Yes, they are a part of the state, but their services are oft more employed by the corporate state more than any other part of society. They are used as the club of the capitalist, bashing those whom do not submit to the desires of greed and excess. One must remember, a club has no malice, it is the one who welds it whom bears the responsibility of its effects.

Operation Watermelon

   I, as a concerned citizen of the world, am proposing a solution to the climate crisis. As I can see it, the current political and economic climate of the world order as we live it is much too constrained. We are, as a species, careening towards inevitable destruction as we await our political class save us from the capitalist private sector. As it stands now, especially in America, we are fucked with either current political candidate; Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. This is unacceptable, this is outrageous, but as in all things, no heroes exist to save us. So, in the spirit of hope, though it dwindles daily, I propose 'Operation Watermelon' the plan requires a network of people, I propose a crowd funded approach to the problem. In other words, a large online donation community, along with the plan.

   Now, the plan is simple, install, free of charge, solar or wind green energy on the roofs or in the backyards of poor people; brought to you by the local 'Operation Watermelon.' The only catch is, Operation Watermelon gets to keep any of the money made from the runoff power generated by the green technology installed. Thusly, it will create a virtuous cycle the more panels and turbines are installed. If a large enough donation base can be acquired and maintained, the building of such an infrastructure could in the long run pay for itself.

   Do it, if anyone reading this has the infrastructure, knowhow, or understanding/desire to undertake such a venture, make 'Operation Watermelon' a reality. Here in America we have some states that give monetary compensation for run off power, use them as a starting ground. The truth of the matter is, there are no heroes, the people are going to have to save themselves, truth be told, Operation Watermelon can be done without congress, without the president, it can be done by the public as a charity, that over time self funds itself. Me and my brother have been staring long and hard at this issue, and in the end we have come up with this, it's not actually impossible. If the example of Senator Bernie Sanders has taught us in America anything, people power works, sure, the powerful will fight you, but this seems much harder to fight; what's the government going to do, uninstall all the green tech you give to people as their personal property? That is a highly unlikely scenario, so, in the end, I do believe that this can be the solution to the American 'green grid' problem, everyone is waiting for the government to green it, when the reality is that the fossil fuel industry has bought and paid for the political class. The only solution I can see is a crowd funded green grid, or, a more unlikely situation, a few rich billionaires deciding to do the very same thing; probably for profit. Either way, the world needs renewable energy, it needs a green grid, and doubters be damned, it can be done, nothing worth doing is easy, change the nation, the time is right, green the grid.

Elements Of Gender: An Observation

     Around the world we are undergoing a shifting of gender concepts; it's a slow process and one that we will get through, should climate change not lead life to extinction first. Right now we still have a lot of attention being put on the female side of gender disparity, but I think people are less quick or understanding for males. We always talk about the repressive culture women have suffered, but when you think about it, men have lived with a different kind of repression that has stemmed from the same patriarchy system; as patriarchy only benefits 'rich men' and realistically 'rich women' the connection is obvious that wealth is the actual influencer, not necessarily gender or sex. Women have actually made some great strides forward in the 'equity' of certain participation and social/economic mobility, but remember this. Many, not all, of modern day feminists are not arguing to be registered for the draft; though this would certainly be a part of the height of social equity.

     Men have lived with many nagging thoughts that they themselves may not even be actually aware of, for example, men are cannon fodder for war, they go and die, while women are viewed as something to be protected, they stay home, raise children; but I dare you to tell one of those mothers or fathers that their son is only good for such a fate. A parent's child is viewed as precious to them regardless of gender or sex, yet there is an implicit bias that men have a different standard. As an example, men are viewed as 'stronger' and so there is often a general felling that 'you can handle it' when things go wrong or badly. Men are expected to 'be on top of things' regardless of many circumstances. I've known many friends of mine who feel like failures because they haven't measured up to the standards of manliness that others have expected them to.

     Women can in today's society comfortably wear more masculine clothing without fear of being viewed necessarily in a negative light, men do not have that luxury. This is why the LGBT movement matters so much more than we know, redefining gender roles and sexual acceptability matters if we want to have a emotionally balanced society; there are a surprising amount of men who want to 'look and feel pretty' and by that I think everyone understands what I mean, yet, those people aren't 100% comfortable with the idea of being out in the public about it; judgment and all. We are living in a realignment of what it is to be a man in this new world, and that's ok, but I would hope that people understand that this is happening and that like all things it is slow and often not so uniformed.

     The equity part of feminism is a two way street, and while female advancement is important and the social stigmas and barriers against them need to be addressed, many of those same barriers extend in very different ways to their male counterparts, they may manifest in different ways, they may have different effects, but they exist. Women have had to deal with many oppressive situations, but think of who patriarchy keeps down in total, if you're not rich, patriarchy oppresses women, gay men, transgendered people, and forces poor men to fight in their wars and die for their imperialist causes for more wealth and privilege and makes impoverished men to brutes over their fellows because of that measly amount of power they cling to is all they have to pride themselves in order to give them solace against the grueling fact that they are powerless against a soul crushing system that treats them callously and with complete indifference; pride becomes the only sanctuary left to the weak. We need to grapple with this if we have any real desire to address the true inequities and systemic problems that we face as a species.

     In any way, however, it is true that the human spectrum of gender roles is, to a slight extent, being more acknowledged for what it is rather than what we would force it to be. The acceptance, however, of said diversity is long from complete. Perhaps we require a male sexual revolution when it comes to seeing that sex as diverse in its appearance and behavior. We need to, as a society, grow more comfortable with seeing/allowing the expression of individual autonomy and diversity. Though, the truth of the matter is, there is an inevitable overlap with the cause of equity of human rights and the inequity created by capitalism, such things are inevitable and to a certain extent are intertwined.

     And so, in summation, I would agree that there are also a lot of problematic things that come along with gender roles in general though. This type of thinking is both victimizing to women but also insulting to men; as it asserts than men are by definition uncontrollable. Gender stereotyping is a net negative to all, women stay at home, cook, clean, take care of children, Men are cannon fodder who are only good for working, fighting and dying for other people. Daughters are breeders, Sons are pawns in the game of war and the machine of capitalism; both are reduced to tools, divest of their human potential. Men are handsome and women are pretty; the other way around is viewed as socially stigmatic, don't see why, pretty guys can be just as attractive as women from what I have seen. Society has got a long way to go until we shed this over simplified way of thinking; that or global warming will kill us, either way, it will be gone.

Verse And Worse

 

     My second, privately printed, published book; publishing the third edition of my grandfather's (Cleave Hedman) poetry book. A book of poetry, limericks, song lyrics, and personal stories from his life.  Cleave Hedman died on January of 2016, and so I was commissioned by my family to compile his collected works into a more collected edition. This is an excerpt of what had been considered his theme song; he would sing it everywhere he went, as his own personal composition.

 

I Like Pretty Girls

I like pretty girls, I do not think I know,

Anything that does inspire the mind of thrill the spirit so,

I like pretty girls and the pretty ways they do,

All those little pretty girl things that pretty girls do.

I like pretty girls, that is my confession true,

If you don't like pretty girls, there's something wrong with you.

 

Oh I like pretty girls as did my dear Father,

Who was quickly captivated by the chars of my dear Mother.

And back when Grandpa first saw Grandma,

He thought she was the queen.

Oh, she was just about the prettiest girl Grandpa's ever seen,.

Dad liked pretty girls, Grandpa liked 'em too,

So when I like pretty girls it proves my heritage is true.

 

Oh, I like pretty girls, but please don't tell my wife,

She thinks I married her for her money; to enrich my life.

My wife is very pretty, and she's very, very smart,

But please don't tell her I like girls, 'cause that would break her heart.

She's a very pretty girl, her eyes are big and blue,

And you make look, but please don't touch, she don't belong to you.

 

Now the good lord up in heaven, he knew what he was doin',

When he created man and woman and they commenced to wooin'.

He first created Adam and he then created Eve,

She was very, very pretty, he was very, very pleased.

Now the lord created girls, just for me and you,

To show appreciation you should love the girls too.

Now when I go up to heaven, as I expect I will be doin',

I'm not gonna play the harp all day, nor sing no pretty tune.

Just let me have my glasses, 'cause I expect to see,

A host of pretty lasses just waiting there for me.

I'm going to love those pretty girls, hug and kiss them too

And when eternity ends I'll start again; if I am able to.

Oh yes, I love those pretty girls, yes indeed I do,

If I ever stop loving those pretty girls, you'll know that Hedman's though.

 

 







Nihl: Comming Up Short To Nothing

As a nihilist some issues about 'authority' will and do come up as an argument against the reality of nihilism. One such issue is the argument against a nihilist even being able to generate 'meaning' due to the fact that a nihilist sees no 'intrinsic meaning' in life. I in no way believe that 'personal meaning' is not a thing that we can create and utilize, rather that cosmically all things are meaningless and worthless. This is actually wonderful because we are thereby not bound to some 'intrinsic' meaning that dictates our valuation of both our own personal lives as well as the lives of others. A good example is the idea of say someone's family heirloom, it has no meaning to those without a connection to the heirloom itself, but perhaps great meaning to those who value it. As an object in and of itself it has no valuation at all, it can neither value itself nor contain any intrinsic value of its own; we bring to value. The very concept of life also has a similar valuation, the difference is that we are not inanimate objects, and so we value ourselves and others despite the obvious cosmic insignificance that we present. This in no way is to be depressing, rather it should be relaxing, it means that in the end all is for nothing, and while this may cause some great anxiety, it is in truth a perfectly acceptable truth. It should calm most anyone, as it shows what the world was like before we were born and what it will inevitably be like after our extinction. It in no way takes away the beauty of life, the struggle that life faces in the void of emptiness; the inevitable return to said emptiness. It may at first seem horrid, terrible, or depressing, but as with all things sad and difficult, acceptance allows us to move on from our grief that we are not ultimately significant to the universe and even to life itself.

However, even after accepting such a thing a nihilist will come across the argument of "How shall we live?" and before one can answer the follow up will be "How can you have any significant say on the matter, given the fact that anything you prescribe is basically an emotive opinion?" In this regard their is no concrete answer to provide, realistically a nihilist may use the descriptive powers of science to make arguments, they may outline a preferred system that they champion as a 'better system of life' but they would have as much 'authority' in both a moral and  subjective sense as anyone else. This however proves the point that the nihilist's arguments are no more valid or invalid than anyone else, on the contrary I would argue that they are slightly more honest; being as their positions are argued from the place that nothing but humans are the definers, movers, shakers, designers, and enforcers of society and its values. A theological positions, for example, would perhaps argue that God is the prime mover of all things moral and valuable; this has, as history has shown, proven nothing about their claims as true. Quite literally though they and their multiple splinter groups have shown that their humanity proves that they cannot agree and are perpetually diverging from one another in arguing about "who is right" from a concrete theological prospective; throwing out the idea of the 'concrete' bit allows us to see our systems as they are, human made constructions who serve us, not the other way around. This says nothing of the seemingly suicidal and destructive nature of some religious systems. I often find that the desire to 'bring on the end times' is much more disturbing than realizing the cosmic worthlessness of ourselves. The reality that we are the ones who create and shape our temporal meaning and worth in the here and now.

In other words, a nihilist cannot make a 'concrete value/moral claim' and recognizes as such. This in no way means that a nihilist cannot live by moral principles and even attempt to enforce or convince others of such morals or valuations; as personal meaning and personal moral judgment are things unique to the conscious mind and thereby generated as reaction to the world around us; willingly or unwillingly. The fact that we value and create morality is more of a reflection on the reality that the creation of valuation and morality has allowed us to generate greater survival mechanisms rather than the intrinsic existence of either morality or value. Value and morality are in fact creations from our emotional reaction of the world around us and the effects it has upon us and those things around us that we interact with, they are generated by us so as to attempt to create a system by which predictability can be established. A 'moral and ethical' society, aka a place where people generally know the ins and outs of human interaction, is a society more conducive to predictability and therefore easier to navigate and secure one's own survival. Thus morals are adaptations of the species
to continue its existence, this would be one of the general scientific descriptions of the 'purpose' of morality; this in no way means that a valuation of morality has taken place. The fact that a species would view an adaptation that secures its own survival as 'good' is entirely coincidental to the description; just as describing sex's biological function does not in any way commutate its 'value' as an experience in pleasure, that's just coincidental that sex as an activity has evolved to include pleasure, which itself happens to be seen as 'good' by the species.

I do understand that there will be some people who will view the lack of authoritative morality and valuation as a problem. The issue I see with this however seems to me that such a thing has never existed in the first place and that we have been behaving in this nihilistic framework the entire time and just have not recognized it as such. Let us take the example of Christianity, some people in the community argue to care for the poor, some argue that none shall eat if the don't work, which of these has more authority than the other, which is more moral? The answer is that on both sides they see themselves as moral and authoritative, I rest my case, they are participating in individual and group valuation and morality; neither is more authoritative nor more 'correct' they are humans arguing over human arguments. Either could make a case, such a case could or could not be persuasive to their fellow humans sentiments, but in the end they are both emoting their desires based purely on nothing but themselves. Neither is 'right' and neither is 'wrong' this is not an attempt to play the both sides are the same, rather that neither of them have some special authority over the other. They can argue which system would work more fluidly to establish a more predictable society and make life for the species less unpleasant perhaps, but that is about the only descriptor beyond the emotional that they have, and they will both use the emotional as the bulwark of their argument; with or without the scientific descriptors to back it up. This can be applied to anything, religion, politics, economics, anything that is not a physically concrete thing, anything in idea space can fall under this line of argumentation.

Now I understand that even some people who may indeed view themselves as receptive to nihilism at this point may shake their heads and say, "Now that's where you lose me. I cannot accept this reasoning. Not because it may indeed seem to be correct, but because it would grant that morality and valuation do not exist and thereby this makes my arguments against what I would deem immoral behavior to be that much the harder to argue against." Now, while I concede that this may indeed be true, I again would argue that nothing really has changed. We as humans will still be arguing the same points, but we will be arguing them more honestly now. In many arguments within our society, what we are arguing is about our preferences, and what those preferences are, are preferences of predictability. We are fighting about how we want the gears of society to turn, which cogs do we wish placed where, for what purpose and to what end. What we are arguing is how we will construct our civilization, and this is very important, it is very personal to each and every one of us; for one glaring reason. We are the only ones coming to save us. We build and tear down, we despair and inspire, we grow and we change; this is the magic that is our lives. A purposeless existence is like a blank canvas to an artist, full of possibilities and more beautiful that we can imagine; not because of the blankness on the slate, rather for the color pallet of the artist, and we are the artists. And I, as a writer, pen the moments of my story with intent and creativity; with limited understanding and blurred comprehension. Yet my words, as are all of our words, stained upon the parchment, are bound to time; the pages drying, paper cracking, and the wind sweeping up and away to dust, forever to be forgotten, forever to be lost. Each book has a story, and each story is lost; this does not diminish its beauty, while it lasts.

The Feedback Test

Placed into position of understanding that one can see beyond time to a slight extent. One is given the view of options that one could live one's life. The first choice is a life a short term pleasure, though this is the highest level of pleasure one could attain, for the whole of one's physical life; though nothing of any lasting impact will be left behind after death and you will be completely unknown. The second is a life of struggle and difficulty, yet some of it will remain for other persons to glean from an admire; these things will also be perceived as having done 'great things' for society, however, they will be forgotten ten years after your death and no one will remember you or what you did. The third and final possibility will be to live a life of sorrow and suffering unparalleled and die in misery, but you will be viewed as a hero and lauded as one of the greatest people to have ever lived; though after one-hundred years you will be utterly expunged from mental history and the minds of all people. Which would you choose, given the reality that in all three scenarios you and your actions will be forgotten utterly?

Analytics: When The Watchdog Is Tamed By The Burglar

The complacency of the modern media to the power elite is and has become a truly disgusting and unnerving trend in our societal realm of discourse. We have watched as the watchdog of the powerful has become the guard dog of the privileged; as they walk right on in and strip all and every thing not nailed down. How and why has this occurred? This is an unpleasant truth to recognize, but one I think that all journalists are faced with in a real world scenario on a day to day basis.

Why do the journalists 'sell out' to the powerful? For power itself. Power comes in many forms, as we all know, it comes in the form of money, it comes in the form of access, friendships, higher levels of autonomy are granted the more complacent and less critical you become of the one you are watching; its easier to fuck someone when they don't think you're judging them constantly. As such we find that the media is under a certain level of pressure from the powerful, by the very offer of power itself, and can there by be corrupted by it. As we all know, their are two powers the media can possess, but they can only have one; not both. Either you will wield the power of the public, which oft comes with little but the warmth of self congratulation and the knowledge of doing one's own journalistic integrity; things which do not usually come with many friends in high places. Or the power of access and money, in societies where the government runs the media, flatter the government, in societies where capitalism and the profit motive reign, kowtow to the rich and the powerful for access and higher ratings. Each are corruptive influences that remove a certain level of objectivity.

As a journalist, the media in general, fear should be the thing the powerful should have in the back of their minds when you are around. They should be uncomfortable, if they have something to hide, and you should have the air about you of a bloodhound; searching for the truth, wherever it may lead. But under a system where money is the motivating factor of ones livelihood, it is the source of the money, in any system, that is most corruptive of all. Where are journalists getting the funds to pay their bills, Is it run for profit, is it run by the government? Thus, one can only surmise that all news, in the best case scenario, is and should be run as a non-profit enterprise. We cannot find ourselves dependent on persons whom are dependent on the same persons they are meant to be most critical of; not friendly.

In capitalist economies the profit motive has ruined objectivity and real investigative and in-depth journalism in favor of gossip and access to the powerful byway of softball questioning and flattering episodes of humanizing interviews with those with the most power over the weaker among us. This is both an offence and a disservice to the very concept of the media and the very profession of journalism. It has rendered both of these things into corporate propaganda machines tailor made to promote the irresponsible acts of journalistic negligence upon an unwitting public so as to prolong the redistribution of national wealth from the masses to the wealthy. As the process of journalistic watering down has continued the profession seems more and more to have the look and feel of reality television; with nothing but 'shock' and 'he said she said' types of gossip yellow journalism. This is how truth is reduced to disinformation and how peoples knowledge becomes confused by the perpetual white noise of incessant mediocrity and confusion. This byproduct of the profit motive upon the media, and thereby the masses, creates a grotesquely misshapen idea of what journalism even appears to be. In our profit motive news infrastructure have witnessed gross censorship of certain information. Opinions not conducive to the wealthy or the powerful, things that, if aired, would threaten access or money influx, are either briefly mentioned with a passing comment, or are not even acknowledged as having even occurred at all. This type of control over information brings society into a dangerously close proximity to a type of lifestyle that we have often seen in the nightmares of human history.

The profit motive must be removed from journalism, it has created a mass disinformation network the likes of which we have only seen in totalitarian regimes. Both, total government control and profit motive are not trustworthy means to allow journalism to exist; as it fosters the issues of money, access, and censorship. Under either the press feels the pressure to 'make nice' with those whom hold the reigns of power and attempt to garner trust; thereby corrupting their objectivity and their critical faculties that would inform them to inform the masses of any wrongdoing. This is a very important part of the system of society, when the press is corrupt, when it is broken, we cannot reform, we cannot bring ourselves even begin to speak about justice when we do not even know that injustice has even occurred or that it was even unjust to begin with; as the inquiry and the judgment/framing of the offence is the duty of the media.

As such, the media is required, should it wish to be an arm of human decency, to be a member of broader society; not an arm of the powerful few. The media is, and should be, the people, it should reflect their hopes, dreams, struggles and nightmares. A non-profit media seems requisite; as a self-righteous for profit media with the wings of justice seems to me to be either a fantasy or a brief anomaly in the practice of for profit industry. We must understand that corruption of ideals and decency never occurs instantly, that people do not often even notice their own moral and ethical capture at the hands of the powerful and uncaring system that lords over the human peoples of the world. The media needs be immersed in humanity, drowning in the morass of the human experience; that experienced reflected in the very suffering that we as humans wish to soon forget and push aside as reflecting upon it causes great discomfort. The media must be courageous and forthright enough to venture into those places long ignored, those places off the path, those places where eyes dare not, or do not, travel. They must be a light who chooses to wander in the darkest patches of our world, with intent, seeking out the blight and the sorrow, the pain and the rot, those places we've forgot; for in this atmosphere of spectacle and short attention spans we forget both the immensity of the suffering and the power we have to alleviate it. The media, journalists, artists, and the dreamers of the human experience, both perceived and real, are to be here with us, with the people, the masses, reflecting both the beauty of fantasy, but also the horror of reality and its ever present effect upon us all. They must be willing to suffer with the miserable, must be willing to discomfort the well to do, they must wish the hatred upon themselves of those with the most power, influence, and access in order to understand that to be with the public is, more oft than not, to be against the powerful. The media, the greatest threat to those in power, should be neither government nor corporate, must be an independent body of humanity. This is the mandate of the media, the commandment of knowledge, that truth has no price too great to pay for it and no one can keep it from us.

Valuation: What It Feels Like

   Now I have been struggling to find a beautiful illustration for why it is nihilism is not to be feared, on the contrary, it should be seen as a beautiful thing. After much pondering I think that I have found it, it is odd but reassuring in a way. For most of my life I have always been of the opinion that "it is not what I feel or think about myself or my work that is what matters, rather it is what others perceive that denotes its worth." And that was just it, this statement applies to all things, including myself, that was what I was missing in my description of beauty for the concept of nihilism. This is not to diminish the concept of self-worth which any individual can and does bestow upon one's self. No, this is rather a realization that even self-worth is something appointed by a thinking mind onto itself and thereby making a thing that would have had no initial value garner the mantle of 'value' by its very own valuation. As such the mind is valuing itself, though it is valueless in and of itself, and thus the value bestowed upon it is firstly of its own narrow individual perspective.

   But here is the beauty, the part that is unique to nihilism in and of itself, for it is one thing for one to value oneself, it is another thing entirely for another to value you, to be seen as valuable by another mind is and should be aw inspiring, to be an object of value to another person, a thing that they view as worthwhile and important to their own existence and happiness. The most powerful words a nihilist can say or can be told are "I love you" or "Happy birthday" or other such life affirming and existence celebrating statements. They push forth the desire for one to exist, the pleasure and joy derived from the presence of another, and the self-imposed/generated valuation that either the observer or the observed can and does place upon the one being valued.

   Nihilism is life celebratory, it should be a thing that creates within us a feeling of gratefulness that we exist at all; that we even can experience consciousness, however brief it is. Yes, all things are for naught cosmically, but this in no way means that the momentary is not beautiful because it does not last forever; on the contrary, the flower is even more beautiful because we know that we cannot appreciate it forever, for if it always stayed in bloom we would find it mundane and average. We mourn the deaths of those we value because we know that no one else is them, they are the only one of themselves that we will ever know and so we bask in their presence in the momentary while we can. Us applying value to others gives them the feeling of being valued, for without our valuation of them they would only have the lonely approximation of themselves to fall back on. And so, all I as a nihilist can say is "Everyday, tell the ones you love that you love them. Say it in passing, say it with a kiss on the cheek, say it before they leave, before they sleep, before you hang up the phone. No one hates to be loved, for love is the greatest act of valuation to be bestowed upon another."

   In a meaningless world divest of intrinsic value, we must settle for the feeble human valuations of our fellows, of our families, of our friends and our lovers. Are they cosmically significant to the universe? No. Do they mean the world to us? Yes. This is the wonder of nihilism, that it makes us equals on the scale, we value and we are valued in turn, there is no cosmic force that values or scorns us, rather it is only us that does that. Saying "I love you" can be a powerful thing under certain circumstances, but so is another thing, a reverse more horrid that hate on a nihilistic framework, the statement of "I wish you had never been born" the ultimate desire for the destruction of all of an individual's personal and collective value; to desire this is to desire both the removal of the value attributed by the self of the individual and the value of all who value said person. This is the most cruel thing to desire under a nihilistic framework, because it desires that even the brief experience of life experienced would have been better without the experience of another; in all possible ways, by all possible people.

The Beauty Of Nihilism

The temporal is all we have, we chase the temporary for the same reasons we chase beauty; it withers quickly, we wish to bask in its momentary bloom while it lasts. For the flowering of what quenches desire is that which the spirit of humanity chases and feels most deeply a kinship towards. This truth is an ever present reality, nothing wrong with any of it, dreaming and fantasy is what the future is made of; where freedom waits to be revealed, for we are truly free when we are ourselves and we are our dreams. What wonders have we made from dreams, what nightmares have we built, and what scapes will we traverse? We make our dreams into reality, for that brief span that we exist in this moment, that is beautiful; the waning time we have brought to fruition with our limited capacity and momentary thoughts and feelings. We work in boundless ways towards the impossible with limited possibility, yet, against the odds, we conflict against the uncaring universe to create a meaning from the nihilistic reality that envelopes us; that is the beauty of struggle, the beauty of dreams, the beauty of life. Despite all impossible odds, in the face of total meaninglessness, we stand briefly and give meaning to the meaningless, description to the picture, feeling to the form, and an observer to beauty.

These things, if nothing else, allow us to reflect upon our mortality and upon our animal nature; as humanity is bound to nature in as much as nature is reflected by itself. We are those parts divided, the conflicting elements of the finite grappling against time itself; clawing desperately at the slipping moments as we fall towards oblivion and the ever gaping maw of eternity. Like sparks we gleam briefly and brightly in the dark, shimmering against the contrast of the universe; a dead and non-conscious place of being, devoid of feeling and caring. We are the universe made cognizant, we laugh for it, we cry for it, we live and die for it; yet the universe itself knows not its own experience of itself, for as we return to the non-conscious state of inanimate matter, we are no wiser than the rest of the universe we inhabit, what a humbling fact. We are wondrously insignificant, like fireflies in the night, appreciated by the observer, but think of how many places observe not. Think of the vast gaps of spaces where no eyes see, where no thoughts whisper; for no minds are there to whisper a thing. We are less than nothing when contemplating it, and our actions are seemingly just as small or smaller when we grasp the vastness of the expanse that stretches out far beyond our little backwater world of green and blue; a speck out midst the stars.

The hubris of our little minds, contemplating that we are special, that some grand designer of great significance shaped and formed us with purpose and importance; all characters in a cosmic story of great significance, yet if we are another's fiction, are we not even more worthless cosmically, a book upon a random shelf? That an author wrote out our lives, sculpted us in detail, outlined our stories and fates; yet says we have free will. Cast I all of it off, for though the night is cold I need not a jacket to comfort me out there in the night air; a brisk walk strengthens the senses and steels the mind. No special divine authority is required to be assumed for order or beauty to arise, our moral scape has been populated by our desires since the begging; with our morals always taking a very human centric view point, a mystery to say the least, such solipsism to the thinker is far less mysterious. We are the shapers and makers of such things, no highest king above all is required in order for comradeship to exist and wonder to fill the senses; we can, do, and should take in the numinous with pleasure and wrap the grandeur of existence around ourselves for those brief increments that such wonder overpowers us and we find ourselves feeling the aw that is life.

What other authority could give one's own life meaning beyond one's self, what individual besides myself could my conscience be convinced of beyond it's own limited capacity, who other than that inmost voice could grant morality to the morals, value to the valuable, or love to the lovely? No transcendent code of civility and morality exists beyond the humans who have constructed and enact such things, we are both jailer and prisoner; yet these are inapt descriptions, for the mind feels offended at such words, and I mean no offence in their use. What perfect life could we have? For life is itself a patchwork of difficulty and struggle, life is a mess, a beautiful and terrible experience filled brimming with pleasure and pain; the likes of which we shall only experience once.  Yet all, all is meaningless, we will be snuffed out with a flick of a cosmic wrist and vanish as if not a thing stood there before; not even a smoking wick will there be, for even the candle itself will have disappeared. And so we choose, we choose how to live, how to live together, how to take or fellows into account and diminish the pain as much as possible; should we so choose to. It is all meaningless, we are all worthless, and what a humbling thing to realize, that we, in all our grandiose dreaming, with all of our life and love, are less than nothing. Yet this is what gives us meaning, we give ourselves meaning, our struggle gives us meaning, our defiant act of dreaming against all the truth presented, that all will come to naught; these are the things that grant us a limited moment of personal meaning and individual value, unto ourselves. We are the lover, we are the observer, we are the valuer, and we give things meaning; despite the fact that all of it means nothing.

Discussing Complexity

            The argument for design (because everything has a designer) is an argument (I use this term loosely, like hangnail unpleasant loose) which pops up like an inconvenient zit on date night, it always comes when you don’t want it to, and it brings nothing else with it but an unpleasant pressure and later (when dispatched) relieving pain. “Something complex needs be designed!” touts the theist, but let us be clear, even things that are designed need not necessarily be designed by just any mind sufficient enough to do so.

            “A clock cannot just form itself, it needs a maker” I agree, things cannot just form themselves by themselves you need components. “Evolution cannot create such vast complexity” now here is where we part (More like one falls into a ravine) ways on this subject. Here is a great example of evolution creating something vastly complex, and yet it still exists. The internet! “Ah-ha. I got you now!” Mr. Theist thinks he’s so clever “The internet was made by a mind, and therefore your argument is void.” Well played, Mr. Theist, well played, but you are missing the point. The internet was made by men, but it (Like all man’s inventions) is an extension of man. The internet is man made, but not just any man could have made it, if we were to go back in time and ask a Neanderthal to come up with something as revolutionary as the world wide web we would most certainly be disappointed (Only if you were stupid enough to believe that the Neanderthal would actually have been able to do it). Why is this so?

            Inventions take time to coalesce into the things they are today, each great invention, be it in technology, philosophy, art and science, builds upon, or is built with, the last great discovery. Imagine if we believed that the internet always was, that it existed forever in a timeless state, we just had to discover it. This would be a very strange way to see the world, everything exists because it does, and if it has not come into existence yet that just means that it just hasn’t come into it’s time. Just think about that, everything is, it’s just hidden from us. In a theistic world view you almost have to believe this, for if everything is predestined, then everything already exists, and we just are not where they are yet. In a vague sense this is how rational people view reality, everything is out there (All of the components and such), we just have to make them work, put them together and presto, instant immortality! But let us return to the idea of God has made everything that ever was and is to come, if we ever cure cancer, then God withheld the knowledge from us until a later date for what reason? Must we have grown to appreciate that dying a slow and agonizing death of non-rent paying cellular moochers is a bad thing, or does He believe that if we spend enough quality time with cancer that we can work out our differences?

            But what about the internet, yes, well this complex data base of knowledge and porn just didn’t arise out of nothing, it came from many hundreds of years of human tinkering and ingenuity. Humanity loves knowledge, sex, violence, and entertainment, so what’s on the internet reflects these things. We have placed everything, our history, art, and thinking, onto a vast circuit board which we now have access to nearly all around the world. But it wasn’t always that way, back in the dark ages the best you could hope for was visiting a library, and farther back the church, and farther back, oh you get the idea. The point is that our system of knowledge and communication has advanced to a level unforeseen (Strange when you think of it, God not knowing about the internet, I mean you’d think He’d have told the prophets that ‘One day man will be able to speak to people he cannot see, hundreds of thousands of miles away’ ‘Sure they will God’ ‘I’m serious’ ‘Sure you are’), and yet we do not call this miraculous, we just accept that we can and will continue to build bigger and better devices with which to extend ourselves.

            “A mind still built them” chides the theist, as if it somehow proves his point. Yes, but think about this (I know it’s hard), none of these extensions of human ingenuity would exist without the human mind, but has the human mind always existed in such a state so as to come up with something as vast and masturbatory as the internet? Of course not, human thought and the human brain are in no way the way they once were back thousands of years ago; our species has changed greatly since it first picked up a stick. We are different then we were, and when we go back even farther we find that we were not even bipeds, and in no way were the same ingenious ape we are today. The point being, that in order for the complex to arise it must begin simply. The ameba may seem simple now (By our definition of simple, have you ever seen a chart of all the things in an ameba!?), but compared to the first form of life to have ever exited (Which, unfortunately we have no example of) it is much more complicated then what started life. The very idea of inanimate matter birthing life is exactly as it should be, seeing as how inanimate matter is far less complex then living matter, it would only make sense that the lesser gives way to the greater. Similarly how nothing can give rise to something, if nothing (Un-unformed particles randomly phasing in and out of existence) is simpler, then it is safe to assume that complexity could arise from it.

            Mind boggling, not really, just counterintuitive, if we assume that complexity must start from simplicity, then the only way we can disprove this idea is to find a complex thing that always was. Searching, searching, searching… I… um… The dog ate my deity! I can think of no such implicitly complicated thing that just came into being as complicated in and of itself, it takes time and many simper components to create complexity, and those things don’t just come together all at once, it takes a lot of time and chance. “It’s astronomically imposable!” Cries the theist, even so it’s not impossible, and all you need is one example of the process working for such an argument to be crushed under the weight of it’s own absurdity. No scientist believes that when life started there were people and critters of all shapes and sizes just walking around going “Man, I wonder how we got here?” rather life was small and simple, it could have been nothing more than a bit of light sensitive amino acid, or whatever’s more simple and probable than that, but life just didn’t come into being in the way we know it today, life was a bit more goopy and a lot less interesting then it is now.

            “You still have proven nothing! Where is your retort against the idea of a creator?” Touchy bunch aren’t they? Well I have already answered this, in a way, you have to be able to point to God, where is He? An example of a complicated being that always was is needed, you cannot assume by default a priori that “God must have done it because it exists and I wasn’t there to see it come into being so somebody had to have been!” this is an absurd way of thinking, it’s like looking at a rock and saying “Who made this?” no one made it! To assume intent is like the person who in his paranoia believes that someone is sabotaging him when bad luck arises, it is just as ridiculous as a person who personifies the abstract and believes it to truly be a conscious thing. Accidents happen, no one is responsible, and we usually accept this to be true, but not all accidents are bad, there are many happy accidents, like winning the lotto, or living to one hundred, or seeing a lunar eclipse in our life time, or many of the other things that you have no real control over, life can be a happy accident, and it need not be offensive to think so.

            Why are we scared of death? Why is non-consciousness our fear? Tis but the return of the complex to the simple again, what cosmic poetry, and yet, like the best poems, it’s sad. We love our life, we love other’s lives, we love! Oh to be unable to experience this joyous existence, yet we are on a short leash, so much, and yet, we’ll never see it all. It brings with it a strange sting, one of hope and wonder, but also that of despair and melancholy, what sights are there to see that I shall never glimpse even but darkly? We are not alone in this truth though (Thank God, I was beginning to think that I’d have no company in my pity party), just think of the litany of others throughout history who could never have even dreamed of the dream that is today, what would they say of our strange land of mystery and wonder? Well you’re going to have to say it for them because they’re not here, we have built this world upon their tombs, and they have died so that we could live, think of the countless lives that came before, and then think of the precious few who changed our world for the better, it seems impossible, but it only takes one to prove that its not, we are a living testimony to the strength and magnificence of the evolutionary theory, and we’re lucky enough to be able to recognize it.

            “Evolution, bah, it’s just a theory!” Saying this only gives away the fact that you don’t know the definition of “scientific theory” rather you are probably equating the word with the “conspiracy theory” definition, and they are in no way the same. But, here comes a problem, we are nearing a troublesome event, one with great moral implication for our species, and a powerful outgrowth of evolutionary theory, artificial intelligence. Someday soon, you will be able to adopt an automaton, and robot abuse will be prohibited, and man on machine relations will be intimate in a truly loving way, but that day is being overshadowed by the day that will come before. The day where signs will be held saying “Property not person!” the day where slavery will rear it’s ugly head yet again and reinforce a bigotry once thought dead, a day where technophobes will lash out at their robotic brothers and sisters, and there will be sorrow and pain as there was in the ages past. I see this day, it’s as clear to me as the tears that will be shed for those countless lives ended and ruined by illogical reasoning and unrestrained fear, by mass disinformation and apathetic politicians, woe unto humanity for this future sin, woe unto us all. But here’s the thing, we can see this! We have a very clear track record on our capability to discriminate and unjustly harm our fellows, and yet we behave as if we’re surprised by our actions, as if this behavior is somehow new in the human experience. We will allow our narrow definitions of ‘animate’ and inanimate’ to rule our treatment of others, we will quibble over the concepts of ‘consciousness’ and ‘unconsciousness’ and try to bring in some vague ideas about the ‘true’ humanity of a thing and what the idea of ‘personhood’ actually means, all the while allowing the most heinous evils to take place right under our noses, and without the slightest sense of indignation towards it.

“Geez, are you going to get off your soapbox and what does this have to do with evolution?” My point being this, if it takes the simplicity of inanimate to make the biological, then the complexity of making animate of the inanimate must require the process with which we as biological creatures have undergone so as to even achieve this state and thereby bring consciousness to that which could never be biological. I know it’s sounds complicated (No, it sounds completely rational, someone needs to get out more often) but stay with me, biological matter is made up of simple inanimate matter, but when combine in a certain order results in life, now think about it, imagine the definition of ‘life’ being broadened to what we now refer to as inanimate. If the metal and wires of our machines resulted in consciousness, we have then created life not based upon biological processes, but rather a completely different set of systems, it is therefore reasonable to surmise that the complexity of our artificial life-forms must necessarily be more complicated than our biological life due to the fact that it is very unlikely that said metals would come together under normal circumstances and bond in such a way. Our artificial offspring would by definition be more complicated than us, due to the fact that their existence requires a complex mind to create them, and that complex mind has taken many years and generations of evolutionary changes so as to result in their creation, in fact, without the human the robot wouldn’t exist, but the robot is much more complicated then the human, if we had a robot who experienced life in the same way as a man, that robot, when compared, is more complicated. The robot is an evolutionary outgrowth of humanity, its existence is predicated on man’s existence, but if the robots are allowed to create their own robots, they will make better and more efficient robots, and the robots will easily out weigh humanity in complexity, even to the point of surpassing them.

            “What does this have to do with anything!?” I’m glad you asked. The robot should not be viewed as a creation, rather as an inevitable evolution of humanity through its creative process, much like the Neanderthal and the plethora of other subspecies that mankind has sprung from, we must view A.I as another stage of growth. If we are viewing the creation of artificial intelligence as an invention rather than a growth, we are missing the point of evolution. This is where the theist get’s it wrong, if something is ‘created’ it’s very creation is more complicated than the one that created it, if something is made from someone, it’s complexity is unique in and of itself, but it is still an outgrowth from said thing, such growth has a powerful knock-on affect that spurs further growth and creates untold complexity further on. If we were to look at ‘God’ in this way, that would mean that ‘God’ is ever expanding in his complexity, the very fact that he created things that grow more complex themselves means that they have the potential to overtake God, but sense nothing can do that, and God is the most complex being ever, then I cannot help smelling something fishy. Everything must go from simple to complex, that is the evolutionary rule, and until we find an example of this not being the case, we cannot assume otherwise.

            “But it still took a mind to create it!” yes, but it was created complex to begin with? Think about it, humanity was not always in its current state, we evolved over time to be who we are today, where as artificial intelligence will be complicated by definition, because it could not arise without intelligence guiding it. The human animal took millions of years to come on the scene, artificial intelligence will have only taken a few hundred or so, but its complexity requires guidance, biology doesn’t. We misconstrue improbability with impossibility, and we mistake intention and accident, both are the telltale signs of pattern seeking creatures, we want to see design behind things because it makes our life easier, we don’t have to trouble ourselves with the difficult understandings of our world, we can just attribute agency to everything, and sit back and enjoy the ride.

Discussing Assertions: Mental Problems

            A telling problem our society has is the very thing we utilize to strengthen it, human testimony. What we say has weight (I know, I’ve been over this before), but as shown earlier, we cannot always trust human consciousness, it likes to wonder, sometimes way off into the distance, and so we must rely on knowing whether the mind of the source is reliable (Easy enough), and in so doing we can make a judgment. But this isn’t enough, (What a party pooper), perfectly sane and rational minds can be just as fooled by themselves as the madman’s, in fact maybe more so, because if we see society as a majority of the time believing with us, we tend not to question our thoughts and in fact hold fast to them.

            Skepticism, is an easy word to throw around, but seems vary hard to teach. Why are religious people not skeptical of their religion, but are skeptical of science? Isn’t skepticism the tool of the scientist, so how has it backfired on it and caused this friendly fire to take place? (How inconsiderate of skepticism really) Simple, when one believes something is true, one tends to not believe the contrary. “But there is no good evidence for their position!” True enough, but they don’t know that. Society panders to those with both money and power, and the church has both, not to mention that tradition seems to trump just about any good reason for change imaginable, plus plenty of people who do not believe say such nonsense as “What does it hurt?” and this gets us nowhere.

            Society reinforces ignorance, not because it knows better, but because it doesn’t. Too many institutions exist that help pander to mythological thinking, for as much as theists attack the so-called ‘liberal media’ I cannot help but look at the ratings of the litany of series that cascade over television, film, and every other conceivable medium (Don’t forget about porn!) that promotes the idea that ghosts exist, or that the sasquatch is real, or any other such maddeningly improbable statement. The only reason they don’t like it is because it just isn’t their specific brand of foolishness, but they should be happy, the more idiocy that exists the less people learn about the real world and pay more attention to the pretend one.

            This is not an indictment against the human imagination, heaven forbid (Because it exists to do so), rather it is a sigh of despair for our species. Human imagination is our greatest asset, and yet our greatest burden, what we think gives us power to achieve seemingly anything (Come on laser toilet brush), and yet when we forget this our minds can run wild and harm any and everything that stumbles into its path. Just looking at the wonderful worlds of fiction created by brilliant minds and word sculptors the likes of which we will never see again, and yet these worlds they have conceived have not been misconstrued as having happened, they are brilliant tails of lands never seen, worlds existing solely in the minds of single human persons, and what is more beautiful then that? God may have made the world, but he’s not the only one who can do that, and there are far better minds then He who have written far greater worlds into existence.

            Our mind gives us power, but it is not our own, we do not control what the mind does (I know I don’t), and thereby we are at its mercy. The brain thinks, and then the brain forgets what you were looking for and you spend all your time looking for something that’s right in front of your face, and then you’re like ‘I wonder if I took out the dog?’ only to find pee on the carpet. Why does your heart beat? Seriously, why? Who’s telling it to do so? Your brain, but you’re not aware of it, unlike when you walk, when you feel that you’re telling your feet and legs to move, your heart just goes on its own, if you never knew it was there you wouldn’t even think about it. This is true of many things within you, you aren’t telling your stomach to digest, it does it on its own, no effort required. So it seems to be with the brain, are you telling the brain to think, or are you just quieting down enough to hear it, and is it the one who’s quieting you down in the first place, and do you have any real choices at all, and why do I feel like a robot? We seem to think that a duality exists, us and the brain (Two against the world!), but this isn’t the case, the brain is you, all of who you are is stored within the brain, that is why it is the saddest thing in the world to see someone slowly lose their mind, to forget who they, and everyone they love, are. When the brain is damaged, who you are is damaged, if the brain is dead, then it follows that the person is dead, we are our mind, and our mind is all we have.

            But in religious terms there is a duality, the soul and the flesh (What a cute couple they make, am I right?), and the flesh is not to be trusted (Stupid skin, always getting paper cut’s for no reason). This is confusion, somehow proven with the idea that ‘We are not our body, therefore we must be more then that, and since the brain is part of the body, we are not our brain.’ (That’ll teach those pesky neuroscientists what’s what!) But this is an attempt to philosophically argue away a fact, a lobotomized person is not the same person they once were, the real them isn’t tucked away in there, like they’re in some form of mental solitary confinement, that person is gone! To damage the brain is to damage the mind and therefore damager the person themselves, if you don’t believe me give it a try, I guarantee you wont be you when you’re done (Please do not do this, and if you do I’m going to say it now “I told you so”).

Evil And Its Judge

            Oh evil, my loath, let me count the ways, one big meat hook two big meat hook… Lets see, oh right, we were talking about theism and such. Right, so why does evil exist? Well evil is an abstract concept created by humans to describe painfully antisocial behavior that results in; I mean sin is the problem. Evil is a natural occurrence when seen from a societal lenses, think about it, why is it that when we see violence perpetrated anywhere, be it in the human or animal (People are animals, why do we keep separating them, I mean go team!) kingdom, we feel a certain repulsion (Well not everyone feels this, but screw them, am I right?), almost as if we are asking ourselves ‘Why?’ But why are we asking why? Stupid question, I know, but I believe it is telling for this reason, people like people, I mean really like people, I mean they really, really, really like people, like in ‘that’ way, if you know what I’m saying, and because we are herd animals we tend to like to stay that way. Conversely, if we were more loner type creatures, perhaps we would care much less for our fellows, and we would certainly only get together for ‘that’ reason just for the sake of relieving our ‘urges’ if you get what I mean. But this is what I’m getting at, because we tend to live in groups, and we wish to be accepted by groups, and feel horrifically ostracized to the point of suicide if we cannot achieve these things (Oh depression, such a pal, you are always there for me), then I must say that our view of evil is pretty simple, what is evil is that which hurts society, and what is good is that which promotes it in the forms of acceptance, creativity, diversity and love; as evil and good are more conceptual descriptions of things rather than a tangible physical force.

            Here we are again, god damned circular logic, but I dare the theist to retort, I double dare him, I triple dog dare him with spaghetti and a chicken wing on top. You cannot argue against the promotion of the wellbeing of human society, you can either accept that which works, or attempt to impose what you believe must be obeyed, but you cannot do both. We can see the cracks in theological society (Cracks, more like gaping black holes), repression both sexually and socially runs rampant, oppression of females is the norm, circumcision is in and science education is out, devotion repudiates criticism, and you have to put the name Stan at the end of your country (The horror!).  But I can here the critics now “But God’s law is perfect, just because we cannot follow it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try” yea, and by perfect you mean that you can’t follow it, so that means it cannot be unreasonable or (God forbid) antiquated. Why is appealing to perfection a copout that works? I mean, why can’t I say “Oh, so you don’t like my soufflé, well that’s just because you’re taste buds haven’t yet been molded to appreciate the brilliance of it’s charcoaled exterior, perhaps one day you will know of it’s true flavor.” I think I’ll use that one later.

            But when we speak of evil we speak of it in social contexts, violence in society is not normally seen as a positive (Unless you’re a zealot, then you can treat the infidels however you want in public, I mean those unbelieving kaffir’s and goyim aren’t going to lynch themselves), and so we give a prerogative amount of distain to those who would dare disrupt the peace of society at large. But, what is ‘good’ is determined by the society, so how can we judge what a society does to be bad if society is the only guiding star by which we travel? Again, by seeing what works.

            We, unfortunately, will always be a step behind progress, and thereby condone the wretched blights of uncivil activity within our society in the naïve belief that it is the right thing to do. We do not have this excuse anymore. We can cite perfect examples of this in modern times, and we must take heed to them, the American civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the gay rights movement, we can see what bigotry and phobic attitudes bring to the table (And to tell you the truth, it’s a bit stale and has some mold on it), and we know they are wrong. (Digression in three, two, one…) I once heard an atheist argue that the concept of ‘objective truth’ was a purely subjective thing, I must disagree on the grounds that the concept of ‘objectivity’ is based upon the descriptive data gathered, and while the facts may change and thereby change the ‘objectivity’ of the fact, this does not mean that the thing was not able to be descriptively known in an objectively sense, it but means that we only can know when we look at the thing to discover it, to know one must search, we cannot hold something as true by default, and yet if we do not know the answer we thereby must discover it, the answer however does exist, and if the answer exists that means that we can know the object, and thereby it’s objectivity. Holding persons liable to undiscovered truths is a waist of time, that would mean that Darwin would have to be considered a liar because he didn’t get every descriptive evolutionary concept right, but to hold him accountable for the lack of technology is asinine, evolution is still objectively true, and creationism is still objectively false, to believe in creationism is just to not look at the world and see what it has to offer. An object can be known, and when it is not know we do not know it objectively, our subjectivity may inform us otherwise of an object, but that doesn’t replace the objective knowledge of the object, rather it just blinds us from it. These descriptions I have given only apply to the physical world of course, in the metaphysical plain of ideas systems of trial and error and checks and balances apply in the face of the reality of nihilism. (What the hell am I saying, I’ve lost my place) The point is that we, objectively, now do have a semblance of what works, that’s it, what is true must descriptively function as described; thusly we can utilize this as another standard.

            But societies run by religion work (Sot of), so they must contain truth in them. The same basic pro-social truths within most societies and a whole lot of antisocial ones that make it a less desirable place to live. Should women cover themselves from head to toe because to reveal their rabid femininity would only entice the rape that they so obviously deserve for such erection educing attractiveness? Well I mean, she’s really out of my league, and it’s not like I’ll get another chance… NO! What in the name of sphincters bassoon are people thinking!? I have never (Well there was that one time on the beach) ever contemplated such crazy activity, much less acted it out, I mean how much self-control do these people have? Modesty, ha what a joke, more like enforced modesty, I wouldn’t wear a bikini either if I knew Mr. Johnson could just pop on in whenever he wanted to because it showed a bit too much skin. Why is that a bad thing? Not Mr. Johnson popping in whenever he wants (He has to ask first), the bikini showing too much skin I mean. It’s no wonder everyone’s so rape happy, I mean just imagine the porn “Man her burka is so big I can’t even see her” “I know man, right” I could just take that off all day” “I know what you mean” and then they masturbate ferociously with sandpaper wrapped with barbwire because life sucks that much. This is both horrifically repressive of women and viciously belittling of men; who the fuck would want to be seen/stereotyped as a mindless raping machine?

            Is this healthy? Can this society sustain itself without inevitably resorting to violence so as to relieve its repression? I think not. You cannot do this to such vast quantities of persons, they’ll find other ways to vent their frustrations, and those other ways may not be too conducive to a healthy citizenry. “How is it wrong” asks the troll “Prove to me that such a state is unequivocally bad. How can you judge their culture against your own you imperialist pig?” Fair question my humble troll, fair question indeed. Your quarrel is with the philosophy of postmodernism, the idea that one culture cannot be more right or wrong than another based upon their moral norms and values, thus rendering everything a matter of opinion or personal taste. I agree that this style of thinking is meaningless, it’s like saying murder, if approved by cultural context, is fine, and yet we do not see societies where murder is just ok under any circumstance, we see that such actions are for the most part frowned upon, thusly we can thereby derive that its functionality is unhelpful in a broad sense in forming a stable society; as it is not widely distributed throughout most social circles. However, to argue against postmodernism, as most theists do (And why wouldn’t they?), seems to be a trick, the critic of postmodernism says “Are their moral absolutes?” and the atheist find’s themselves in a bit of a pickle (How he got inside a pickle in the first place remains a mystery, oh how religious people love their mysteries) on the one hand he cannot say ‘yes’ why, because morality isn’t a thing in itself, it exists only within the minds of humans, but on the other hand he could say ‘yes’ because we have example after example of the normal pro-social activities which form a society. So which is it? Are their moral absolutes or not you indecisive prick!? Yes, and they are that which allows humans to form societies in the first place, with out them society would not have formed and so moral absolutes must therefore exist because they are the first pillars of society by which we set up our camp beneath. What I mean to say is, society is made up of building blocks, a functional pro-social morality (The only functional morality that can exist) is required in order have a society at all. The all too human systems of checks and balances required in a society is what holds the whole thing together; proving the nihilistic prospective as true. But this comes back to the observation that morality is based around the idea of society and not any handed down precepts, if we were not moral we would not have a society and without a society religion as we know it would not have formed in the first place.

            Our basic societal outline is that of safety, sex, nourishment, community and the ability to garner possessions without the fear of losing them to others. These are the basics, but they are in no way optimal, I mean what would life be like without mind numbing amusement? No real rights are guaranteed under this framework beyond the most simple of them “But aren’t these all one needs?” inquires the child “Yes, but life is just not that simple” if everyone got those things, then perhaps life would be relatively enjoyable, but this isn’t so. For once we as humans have congregated, all manner of ethereal abstractions start to emerge like a tapeworm from a colon. Who’s in charge, by what right, and who cannot be in charge? The arbitrary answers fly in rather quickly men are in charge and everyone else isn’t, from women (Of course), other races (Why not?), people who don’t agree (Just because), and any other random group that can be thrown in as well just for good measure (Why not the gays?). The point being, once we start piling on the abstract, we forget about what promotes society and we start just trying to engineer humanity rather than understand and work with it. Morality is made for man rather that from him, we think of a perfect world (Whichever depraved utopia you can grab at, I like the one with the brain boring starfish, but that’s just me) and then hold everyone to whatever depraved unreasonable standard we just stet up for them in our heads, but in no way take into account the persons we now hold accountable the demands.

            This brings us back to the concept of ‘evil’ being an inevitable societal byproduct. When people gather, all manner of things happen, from sex and art, to sex and business, and sex with food, you know, all manner of things, but violence and cruelty are going to happen, pile on enough of anything and eventually there is one too many. We are evolved creatures, shaped by our genes and environment, life is not as we wish it, it is as it is, sucks I know. We are stuck with the problem of being gigantic biological emoters, our brains are flooded with chemicals without our knowledge or choice and we then act accordingly, like punching your brother in the face because you stubbed your toe, completely rational response when it’s a family member because, lets face it, they all deserve to be punched in the face. Now just picture it, everyone’s mind is constantly under the influence of chemical impulse, it’s the ultimate high and no one knows it and the question is who might be getting too little or too much? You can’t know just by looking at them, they could be a body-snatcher! At this rate, it is inevitable that someone’s going to blow their top to astronomical heights, and it’s all your fault!

            If evil is just that, antisocial behavior, then we must look at the ways of combating such attitudes and actions. If chemical imbalance is the reason for a person’s bad behavior, medication is on hand to attempt to deal with it, it’s not perfect, but it is certainly better than nothing. If it is an activity, then we can create laws to combat it, again imperfect but…aw you get it. The point is that we must look at the problem and (First determine if it’s a problem) then act in accordance within a reasonable human framework, this doesn’t mean that you should not curb excesses because their activity may indeed be inevitable, rather just examine it and determine its affect on society and then act accordingly.

            Sounds simple right? Well, it never goes that way. The thud and scrape of the shovel of inquiry against the bedrock of stupidity in the form of a question never seems to stop. “Well who says?” Why is it that when ‘God’ says, strict obedience is totally fine, but when a human says it (Except when he says God’s saying it) then “Who says?” seems to creep out faster than a cockroach to a crumb. Why must we always act in such childish ways? If your brother says it, screw him, if your dad says it, ok. Really, we must imagine a big daddy in the sky, and that is how we shall keep track of ourselves? This is foolishness, when you grow up, guess what, you find out that your parents don’t know everything, that there are smarter people than them who are much more attuned to certain subjects than your parents could ever hope to be, and so you look to those who know more as better sources than those who know less. Who would have thought, and yet, we are plagued with persons who just want one authority to appeal to, that is just unrealistic, no one can know everything, one could devote ones entire life to study (What a loser!) and still know next to nothing, we must appeal to those who do these very things, for even they know that what they know is not even the smallest drop in the pool of eternity that spreads out before us.

            If a scientist contradicts the bible, who are you going to believe? The scientist says that the earth is millions of years old, the bible says thousands, the scientist says that evolutions is responsible for the great diversity of life upon the planet, the bible says that all life was made as it was from the get go, which is more plausible, that the scientist (And all of his colleagues) are willfully lying about their subject (Peer review bitch!), or that the bible is a book of ancient myths written and espoused during times that far predate science? I know, stupid question, but I just thought I’d ask.

            So what does this have to do with judging evil, and who’s judging by the way? Well we are evil’s judge, and therefore we must discover it’s whereabouts and fix it’s dismal attitude, I mean seriously, not everything has to be miserable. How do we do such a venerable thing? As I’ve said, by suppressing antisocial behavior and enhancing pro-social behavior. “You keep saying that, but how do we do that in the now? Everything cannot be solved so easily, can it?” Interesting point, let me see, can there be something that is antisocial that cannot be socially legislated away?  You almost got me, but I think the answer to the question is in the negative, the object in question must be known and in gaining said knowledge we can make a judgment, see, easy! It is all about testing and reviewing the results, if an action leads to an undesirable outcome consistently, we thereby should note the issue and work with that information, we have no right to tamper with the results because it does not agree with our desires, we certainly may run more tests to see if it was done reliably, but we must allow the facts derived to stand before the eyes of review and be judged worthy or unworthy. That is how science works, why is its application seen as terror or worse, an invasion of the space of our precious taboos (Science may say eating your face is a bad idea, but what do they know!).

            What is against society? Actions taken willfully against it, the intent to do something in violation of societal law for selfish gain or reasons, accidents are not evil because they lack any form of intent, unless that action be under the guise of negligence, we do not judge an accident as harshly as a willful action. Now I know the problem here “But you, and all those other atheists, talk about the genetic, social, and chemical reasons why we as humans are seemingly unable to control our actions completely, so how can you judge anyone at all?” Clever, my ever mustache twirling evil twin, quite clever indeed, but even these facts do not preclude the justice system. Let us take for example this idea, a man is raised a racist his whole life, he believes intensely that he is above all other races, and even more radically that all other races should be expunged from existence so as not to dilute the gene pool. He then goes on a terrible killing spree, taking the lives of many and injuring countless more, until he was gunned down himself. Now, knowing that his mind has been infested with these memes of racist ramblings from the cradle to say his eighteenth year, what would you expect? Now I know some may say “Not all racists are violent sociopaths!” (And that’s what makes it ok) but does this situation now somehow seem less evil and more pitiful? Do you not see the mad racist more as a rabid dog frothing with bad ideas about the world, only to be put down because he had no control over his mind’s sick devotion to an ideology that bore no real resemblance to life as it is, but rather superimposed itself upon reality like a oddly tinted lens?

A bad idea can metastasize, malignancy is just as real in the mind as it is in any other part of the body, memes are parasites, some dangerous, others benign, and a few can even be beneficial, but they feed off of your psyche, without you they could not survive. Now I know what you are thinking “Ideas aren’t alive! Who’s the crazy one now?” For the record, I never said I was sane, you just assumed it, and I must disagree with your statement. An idea is a living thing, we make real our thoughts the moment they come into being, it just depends how long it takes for them to die. If what you say is quickly forgotten, then said idea’s lifespan was short, but if not, we then must ask how long will it go on? Parasites need hosts to survive (Oh ring worm, you’re so cute), and without them, well you get the idea. How many human idea’s and inventions would exist without us? Oh yea, if there were no people, then there are no ideas, so… none. There you go; we give life to our concepts by putting them into practice. Creepy isn’t it (IT”S ALIVE!). Now of course, they aren’t alive in the physical sense, but alive in the idea that they are present and thereby affecting reality in a very physical way. If the idea of not killing other humans is put into practice broadly, then there are going to be a lot more humans walking around, this would therefore mean that the idea of ‘not killing’ is alive and well, this of course doesn’t preclude the rule breakers from the equation, for they are just not following the idea, but since the concept has taken hold in such a far reaching way their actions are negligible in comparison. Ideas are strong, they are much more powerful then we like to think, and their durability is outstanding to say the least.

“So if our minds can be taken over by bad ideas, then aren’t we still out of control of ourselves to some extent?” Annoying isn’t it? But like the rabid dog example, we cannot control the initial infection and later terminal stages, we can only combat bad ideas with the fact’s at hand, and we can only remain relatively immunized by keeping an open mind and not allowing ourselves to get overtaken by the used car sales man (Make lemonade out of those lemons, it’s a car you idiot!). This, like the price of liberty, requires vigilance, patience, skepticism, and a willingness to accept that which may not be comforting but is none the less true. We are always at odds with our feelings and the facts, life is hard and the last thing we want is to be ‘without hope’ and feel alone in the world. But, I don’t like certain things either; this doesn’t mean that I can get what I want because I do not like it. No one (Well, not no one, because some do, and for good reason) wants to die. We like consciousness; in fact, our only real conscious experience is with consciousness, so leaving such a state is certainly not considered optimal. But let us joke, why is consciousness good? I mean, none-consciousness isn’t so bad. Since when have you heard of rock on rock violence or the crimes against subatomic particles, or those fiendish rumors about black hole bigotry! You haven’t, inanimate matter cannot suffer, that without consciousness is free from crime, pain, and injustice, I thereby conclude that it is better to be none-conscious rather than conscious, because only conscious creatures can suffer and create said suffering. (Take that you moral mongers! You only wish you could be adamant in your resolve!) Now of course I am not so eager to join my fellow inanimate objects, but rest assured I hold them blameless for the evil’s we endure. (What intent can a rock possess of its own will? Rocks don’t have will stupid!)

But let us look at the other side, can religious minds be taken over, oh yes they can, by demons! (Excuse me while I clutch my crucifix) Demons… really, I mean I don’t mean to be rude but how cartoonish can you get, even the most creepy pop culture possession movie seems laughable no matter how bad it gets. Why is it (Seriously, why?), that when demons possess people they turn them into contortionists, or make them sound like a smoker with emphysema, and makes them say funny sounding things while cutting themselves, and worst of all, it only seems to happen when they are wearing a white nightgown, or maybe it's just me, but I always feel odd when I wear one, and everyone looks at me as if something’s wrong, but I’ve yet to be able to touch my toes, so probably not. But is that it? Is this Satan’s master plan, to make everyone self loathing smokers with a passion for gym and body modification?  I must say, I am more then unimpressed, at least from the sound of him I would have thought he was more creative, or at least ambitious, but it seems he’s in it for the cheap thrills, I don’t think I’ll call him back, I mean it was nice and all but I just don’t see a future for us.

Let us contrast this, one is a bad idea that if left to its own devises will taint a person’s outlook on life by informing his actions through a very narrow ideological lens, the other is a (Very theatrical, Oscar worthy really) demonic possession. Do I really have to say much more (No, but I’m going to any way, so there, put that in your pipe and smoke it!), how plausible is the idea of demonic possession? Are there instances where people (With horrifying mental illness) do terrible things to themselves and others due to a brain diffidently, or a chemical imbalance, or after having ingested certain compounds, or after being forced to hear another ghost story, that is just like the last one, and everybody knows it was the hook-man in the closet with the neon green dildo, I mean who couldn’t have seen that coming? In both instances we are confronted with the scary notion that we may indeed not be in complete control of our conscious state, but one is an understandable and very physical problem, the other is (What other words can I use to describe this?) demonic possession. The idea of another consciousness coming in and overriding our own is certainly an unnerving thought (But was I the one who was unnerved, OR WAS IT THE DEMON!), but if we are dealing with the idea of a meme, this means that the idea doesn’t just kick open the door and declare that “There’s a new sheriff in town!” rather we acclimate ourselves over time to conform to the belief, and then before you know it (Insert ghoulish undertone), your mind is not your own. Well it actually still is, it’s just that, you know, you’re obeying the principles of the meme, and the meme’s dictations are considered more important than, oh forget it!

This seems to be the place where the concept of temptation comes in. To believe or not believe, that is the question? Or, put more aptly, to act or not to act. The idea of temptation seems to me to be a strange phenomenon, seeing as how it links up to both body and mind. What is it to be tempted? To see, want, desire, and resist taking said thing. Easy! (In a pig’s eye) But then the theists come in and before you know it, even desiring, wanting or even seeing is something to be avoided, one shouldn’t even be tempted in the first place, this must make going anywhere the most miserable experience in the world “Hey, let’s go to the mall” “I can’t” “Why not” “Because there’s stuff there I want, but I don’t have enough money to buy it, and if I see it I might be tempted to want it more, and then I’ll want to buy it, and then I’ll be tempted to buy it but I have no money to buy it…” For God’s sake (Excuse the pun), what the hell is wrong with you? But not every theist is so stingy, the mall’s ok, just not certain types of music, or dancing, or movies, or school subjects, and especially the porn, you know how they are, missionary, no exceptions, except you can’t look at it until you do it, so there (Sex is pretty easy, they’ll figure it out, but how will they know it’s missionary or not, we’ll never know).

But have you seen where I’ve gone with this, how the conflation of temptation (HA! That rhymes) is taken to such an extreme that it becomes neurotic. Porn is a temptation (Bet your sweet ass it is) to engage sexual intercourse, but is utilized for the self gratifying means of personal sexual expression (Is it so hard to just say masturbation?) and thereby relieve pent up sexual tension within the individual. It’s healthy. But, to hear tell from a theist, it’s a gigantic prostitution industry that encourages wanton selfishness at the expense of the objectified, but don’t worry you’re pretty little heads my objectified brothers and sisters, they hate you to (So do I, I mean twelve inches! Life’s so unfair, curse you genetics!) because it is you who is single handedly (Both hands for that one guy) destroying the moral fabric of the youth these days, see everyone get’s shit on, such a generous bunch to give away all the corrupting power to pornography, way to go people, keep up the good work. But this is a very strange way to argue against porn. For example, if you were to take the rout that the objectification of others is wrong and dehumanizing to the opposite gender (Yes my transsexual friends, you’re in here too, see I don’t forget), then you may indeed have a good social point. Objectification can create problems, if you don’t see people as people, but rather fancy sex toys, then you are in for a rude awakening when your life-size sex doll isn’t in the mood for skin slapping and would rather sleep in because the night before was miserable, and they have a headache. Any other argument, however, seems to smell (I sure hope it doesn’t, to the shower with you!) of a peculiar ‘because sex is sacred’ odor, and this is not an argument, rather it is a statement without reason, and should therefore be suspect.

But how does this factor in to temptation? Isn’t temptation a feeling, and thereby we may feel tempted but not act on it. Let us swap out temptation with something else, anger. We get angry, but our anger does not rule us. Violence is a byproduct of anger, but we are not always violent when we are angry, just as stealing is a product of wanting, but we do not always steal when we want. Wanting is not wrong, in fact, desire is the driving force of life, for if we wanted not we would never aspire, and as such progress would never occur. Most people want sex, but only a minority are willing to rape for it, many more are willing to pay for it, and a majority are willing to work for it. What does this say? Wanting and having are two different things, and there are right and wrong ways to go about them, but the wanting part isn’t the problem, it’s the having part. The action is what matters, thinking about it doesn’t count, for a court on thought crime is asinine (I’m getting good at this, rhyming that is), it purports that your thoughts, in and of themselves, translate to actions. This is a misunderstanding, your thoughts lead to actions, but only if you act on them, I may really want to beat my children, but unless I do the police cannot accuse me of doing so, and as such my mind and my actions are separated. If I refuse to make real my thoughts, they may as well have never existed.

Is temptation wrong? No, it is a normal part of life, and not every temptation is in the negative. What if I were to say “I am really tempted to give to charity.” Such a temptation surly is not evil, and if you carry out the action to ‘give’ you have done no wrong on either front. But this gets us into a deeper question, one I touched upon earlier, is the thinking part wrong? To think of nefarious things sounds like an evil (Oh if only I could kill Steve and wear his face, just saying, he has a very pretty face) but is it an evil? Let’s look at it this way, should an author be held accountable for the crimes committed in his fiction? The answer seems self evident (He put his what in where now!), of course not. A fictional account occurs in the mind, it is brought forth through a storytelling medium, and it has no physical composition other than that, crazies who act out the deranged deeds aside, there is no reason to hold the author in account with anything other than writing it.

But how does this jive with the notion of memes, how can some bad ideas take control, while others seemingly stay the product of human fantasy? This is puzzling (I hope it’s not one of those big ones, I hate them.), but let me take a crack at it. Firstly, I feel it has to do with order, if it gives the user a sense of control and comfort, regardless of its actuality, it will take root much easier. Secondly, a feeling of community must arise from it, others must take part in the wellspring of the meme’s existence, and seeing as how it may give a sense of control and comfort the battle is half over already. Thirdly, these things must be maintained, a cast of persons assigned to the meme’s propagation and continuation must arise so as to proliferate the followers and thereby the meme’s existence. And fourthly, these things must be done as early as possible, thusly leading to the proselytizing of the youth and thereby the next generation. If these things are carried out the meme will survive undeterminable lengths of time, for the reason that it creates a sense of (Get ready for it) society. Oh look, we’re back to society again, back to pro and anti social, back to asking the questions “What will promote society?” versus “What will harm society?” it’s one big circle and I’m getting dizzy!

Now perhaps the theist will say “Well, you just see everything through your ‘social’ lens, while I see everything through God’s lens.” Fair enough, but it seems ‘God’s’ lens has an eye for social institutions (See what I did there?). The church is one great big meeting place for people of similar viewpoints to congregate and ferment together. The theist doesn’t seem to see that the ‘social’ enterprise of the church is the reason for its existence, not the other way around. We’d see how immutable and all encompassing ‘God’s’ word really was if no one was speaking it, or should I say around to hear it, but that’s the point, the church is a social institution, and as such it follows the basic tenants of all societies, with a bunch of unnecessary additions. Imagine, for a moment, a society where personal preference did not affect the law? What do I mean by that? (Because I’d sure prefer not to die, so…) A society, this is the part that matters, a society would not allow those things viewed as repellent, cruel or evil. Now, can you imagine a society that is not informed by personal preference? I don’t like milk chocolate, and yet milk chocolate exists and I am no worse for it, in fact, society is enhanced by the fact that there are many who do like milk chocolate that’ll eat and enjoy it. What is my point (Yea man because I don’t have a clue. By the way, how many people are writing this?)? My point is, a society who makes laws based upon ‘moral’ objection must be able to prove harm. Much like a court of law, you can’t just take anyone you don’t like in there, they have to have done a justifiable misdeed to you, along with the intent to have done so. If we look at it this way, some laws seem to crack beneath the weight of reason, and yet not all laws against ‘unintentional’ or ‘personal’ misdeeds are destroyed.

Now, no one in the religious camp probably see’s too much of a problem with my reasoning (Except for the porn part, and the ‘no god’ part, and the ‘morality is a man made structure’ part, or the...) and I trust that it has gotten through well enough. The point being, that when the atheist asks “Why?” the answer should not be just “Because!” rather it should have a bit more of a backing behind it, reasons as they say. What good is a rule if you cannot articulate its principles? You shouldn’t eat poop, why? Because it has bacteria in it that could cause you a whole host of health problems like blood poisoning. Now, if the answer is, because it’s disgusting, I’ll agree, but that isn’t a very good reason. This seems to be the way theists win arguments “Well we both think it’s wrong” they say “Yea, but you just say it’s wrong, I know why it is, and I’ll explain” “Isn’t it the same thing?” They’d ask, and the answer is no. Getting a right behavior by accident, so that’s how religion has survived for so long, I mean, toss enough darts at the dart board and you’re bound to hit a bull’s-eye.

The ‘unattractive’ nature of a thing equates no moral weight. Let us say we were to view some very intense German porn (For those of you not initiated in such a unique cuisine of pleasure punctuated by screams, please see the internet as a reference, I’ll wait… go on… DID YOU SEE WHAT THEY DID! I mean, I had no idea you could fit a cactus into your…), now can we ascribe morality to such excessive instances of S&M? Well, only based upon the intent of the practitioners. If the sadist is not truly intending to cause lasting harm to his or her partner, and the masochist is voluntarily participating in the event, we may then conclude that no harm is being done, two individuals sexual expression is merely being released and said practice results in a healthy outcome (In a pig’s eye!). Now that I am done thoroughly stereotyping an entire cultures sexual practices and by default degrading one of their expressions of love (I’m not concerned, the Germans are a tolerant people. I mean, now they are), I must emphasize the importance of the ‘reasons’ being so crucial.

You walk up to someone and you notice that they are crying, why are they crying? The answer will make all the difference to your response to them. If they say “My mother died” then you will know they are experiencing the extreme grief attributed to the loss of a loved one and comfort them accordingly, but if they say “The severed head in my backyard won’t speak to me anymore” you should appropriately back away slowly while saying thing’s like “I’m sure he just needs some time to collect himself” before running away while appropriately flailing your arms and screaming. Each of these scenarios gives a reason, one seems legitimate, the other crazy, but your response is predicated on the reason, and it can be no other way. What if you didn’t care about the reason? What if you just walked on up to just any crying person and started comforting them without asking why they were crying? Well one things for sure (There’s going to be one more severed head in someone’s backyard), you will quite possibly respond in the wrong way. What if they are crying because they just got the news that their loved one had just emerged from emergency surgery after receiving an injury that would have otherwise proved fatal, but they have survived. Their tears are of relief, joy and a release of built up tension, they may be inconsolable, but not because of sorrowful news. This is important, we must understand the reasons for things, but we cannot settle for a blanket ‘reason’ they must be specific reasons, this is why intelligent design is not taken seriously, the answer is always ‘because God’ and that seems to be the blanket reason for everything in existence (Because it is, for the theist). But this form of reasoning isn’t reasoning, it’s like me saying “Spaghetti has meatballs, meatballs exist, therefore spaghetti!” it presupposes a thing without having to prove it, why could the meatball not exist without spaghetti, who says the noodle must accommodate sphere shaped ground beef, such a clam must be contested (I refuse to yield my meatballs to your narrow rules on consumption!).