Tuesday, April 21, 2015

A Jezebel President.

George Bush may have been an idiot but he never left his country impotent, like Jimmy Carter did. How does the most powerful nation in the world get bought to its knees without a shot being fired? Perhaps it's when they elect, through their deliberative and shrewd judgement, an idiot man of God.

Anyone trying to understand the malaise at that time would do well to reflect on this latest piece by Jimmy Carter as an insight into the "mind" of the man. One doesn't expect high intellectual standards from the Left but Jimmy is proof that age does not necessarily give wisdom, nor "faith" intelligence.


Guess the men who fought and bled on Guadalcanal and Tarawa died so such a man could rule.

Give me Tricky Dicky any day.


14 comments:

Greg said...

Then there's this: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/301448-controversy-after-rotc-cadets-allegedly-forced-to-march-in-event-wearing-questionable-footwear/

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Greg

It's pretty embarrassing. What sucks is that they are being directed to do this by their higher ups. What will happen in the future. Bend over a take it like a man? In support, of course, of homosexual awareness week.

chris said...

If you ever wanted a rational, effective, non-bigoted argument opposing gay marriage, here it is.

This argument provides a compelling case against gay marriage while also nullifying any counterarguments of the vein , "you're just stupid" or "you're just bigoted" or "gay marriage poses no threat to marriage as an institution!"

chris said...


Part II
But how on earth could gay marriage equality import different moral norms into the concept of marriage for heterosexuals you might say? Well, it’s very simple. Through the Courts. Remember, in our society, marriage is a legal construct.

I’m going to quote from H. L. A. Hart’s ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Feb., 1958), pp. 593-629.

Which can be accessed here;

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~horty/courses/readings/hart-1958-positivism-separation.pdf

How do judges decide (reason out) cases?
“A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles, roller skates, toy automobiles? What about airplanes? Are these, as we say, to be called "vehicles" for the purpose of the rule or not? If we are to communicate with each other at all, and if, as in the most elementary form of law, we are to express our intentions that a certain type of behavior be regulated by rules, then the general words we use - like "vehicle" in the case I consider - must have some standard instance in which no doubts are felt about its application. There must be a core of settled meaning, but there will be, as well, a penumbra of debatable cases in which words are neither obviously applicable nor obviously ruled out. These cases will each have some features in common with the standard case; they will lack others or be accompanied by features not present in the standard case. Human invention and natural processes continually throw up such variants on the familiar, and if we are to say that these ranges of facts do or do not fall under existing rules, then the classifier must make a decision which is not dictated to him, for the facts and phenomena to which we fit our words and apply our rules are as it were dumb. The toy automobile cannot speak up and say, "I am a vehicle for the purpose of this legal rule," nor can the roller skates chorus, "We are not a vehicle." Fact situations do not await us neatly labeled, creased, and folded, nor is their legal classification written on them to be simply read off by the judge. Instead, in applying legal rules, someone must take the responsibility of deciding that words do or do not cover some case in hand with all the practical consequences involved in this decision.

We may call the problems which arise outside the hard core of standard instances or settled meaning "problems of the penumbra"; they are always with us whether in relation to such trivial things as the regulation of the use of the public park or in relation to the multidimensional generalities of a constitution.”

I’m going to propose several assumptions that will be used in a hypothetical. We need not debate these assumptions as I am just using them to illuminate a particular form of logic that would occur when deciding a legal case. These assumptions and the hypothetical will also be used to illuminate the existence of a moral system behind laws which the law attempts to divine (or which Judges atleast attempt to) but which doesn’t always map directly onto that moral system.

chris said...


Assumption 1) Marriage exists as the social codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans.

Assumption 2) The long-term mating strategy in humans consists of men exchanging their own exclusive physical investment for a woman’s exclusive sexual investment. If the man diverts his physical investment to another woman, this is at a cost to the original woman he promised it too. Likewise if a woman directs her sexual investment to another man this is at a cost to the original man that she promised it to.

Assumption 3) Cuckoldry, that is the diversion of a woman’s sexual investment to one man while she is in a long-term relationship with another man is the worst thing that can possibly happen to that man who is in a long-term relationship with her. In a system where cuckoldry is rampant, male monogamy is not expected to evolve or exist, ergo the male long-term mating strategy is not expected to evolve or exist.

Here is a hypothetical for you dealing with the penumbra.
Let’s say we live in a legal system that protects the long-term mating interests of both a man and woman in a long-term mating relationship. Let’s say this society calls this long-term mating relationship, marriage. Let’s say that the underlying justification for this ‘marriage law’ is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating.

Let’s than also say that a group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply, suddenly want to be included within the same legal construct.

A married couple in this society want to get divorced. The woman has been adulterous, so the man wants to retract his physical investment in her, which means no providing resources or protection to her. Given that this legal system protects his long-term mating interests, and given that the underlying justification for this protection is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, the judge allows him to retract his physical investment to the woman.

chris said...


Now let’s say that the group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply is Gay Men. And let’s say that Gay marriage is passed and they are suddenly allowed to marry. And let’s say that the justification for this allowance into the institution is ‘equality’.

Now let’s also say that because these are gay men we are dealing with, that they do not have the same mating psychologies as heterosexual men and so are perfectly okay with sexual non-monogamy. There is no rule proscribing sex with others outside the marriage within gay long-term relationships.

Now here is an instance in the penumbra. A gay couple has married, but they want to get divorced. One of them has been adulterous. However, it is argued in court that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships do not proscribe adultery. Should this adultery factor into the division of assets, the supply of alimony? The exchange of physical investment from one of the men to the other? Is there even an exchange of physical investment? If the underlying basis of ‘marriage law’ are the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, how do you integrate a group of people whose mating behaviours violate those very principles into a system that has been designed to protect the interests conceived of via those principles? It doesn’t make sense to say that in a gay couple one partner can cuckold the other partner. So how can you apply a rule that retracts the physical investment from one party to another, when the basis for the existence of that rule, cuckoldry, doesn’t occur?

It’s plausible that an exception could be made. Kind of like the whole, we have freedom of speech except you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre type kind of exception. The law does this all the time, For instance a statue against cruelty to animals might exclude mice, rats, and pigeons from the definition of animal for the purposes of the statute, as a way to allow lab experimentation or pest removal, even though we all know that they are still animals in reality.

But it’s also plausible that because the basis for the anti-cuckoldry rule does not occur in gay couples, that the rule won’t be applied, and it will be left at that.

chris said...


What then happens if another married couple come along, a heterosexual couple, and they want to divorce? The woman has been adulterous and so the man argues that he should be allowed retract his physical investment to the woman, i.e. no giving her assets he paid for, no giving her alimony due to there being anti-cuckoldry laws. But the woman is clever. She knows that gay married couples don’t have the anti-cuckoldry law applied to them, and she knows that gay marriage is to be treated as equal to heterosexual marriage, and so she argues that since anti-cuckoldry laws aren’t applied in gay marriage, then they shouldn’t be applied in heterosexual marriage as the two forms of marriage are equal. They are the same. Indeed, it is a conceptual error to even consider them two separate forms of marriage. There is only one form of marriage and thus by establishing that a gay couple divorcing don’t have anti-cuckoldry laws applied in their divorce, a heterosexual couple divorcing shouldn’t have anti-cuckoldry laws applied in a divorce either.

Now all of a sudden, this institution, which has protected the long-term mating interests of men and women for centuries, has suddenly undermined a vital protection to the long-term mating interests of one of the parties by treating two separate categories, which have separate moral rules surrounding them, as if they were the same category. If you equalise the categories, then you need to equalise the rules surrounding the categories to make them equal.

Now it is possible that the categories could be equalised, and they decide to just throw an exception in in those instances where it would be unjust to allow equal treatment, as a way to resolve the issue and allow gays and heterosexuals to marry while retaining the different moral rules for each category.

But it’s also possible they won’t. And heterosexual men’s mating interests will be crushed within the crucible of rigorous logic.

chris said...


Part III
Now you will probably say, “this is a superfluous example, our marriage laws don’t recognise an anti-cuckoldry law, they don’t exist to protect the long-term mating interests of each party, adultery doesn’t affect the division of property or the award of alimony.” And you’d be right. In your jurisdiction they don’t, and in my jurisdiction they don’t. But I would contend that they should. I would contend that for the greater part of both our jurisdiction’s legal history, indeed of Western legal history, that marriage laws did protect such interests and that the ultimate underlying justification for that protection (although not always realised) was evolutionary principles. I would contend that morality is based upon evolutionary principles and that the legal system should attempt to map as directly as possible to that underlying moral schema as much as possible. I would contend that our current marriage laws are an aberration in their rejection of evolutionary principles as their justification and are responsible for disincentivising marriage amongst heterosexuals rendering the institution redundant with each and every passing day. I would contend that this disincentivisation and such disregard of the mating interests of men is an unjust and immoral act and constitutes a moral deficit in our society. And finally, I would contend that the legalisation of gay marriage is a step in a direction away from rectifying that. It is a nail in the coffin of a marriage system being justified by an evolutionary schema.

If you do away with anti-cuckoldry laws, you end the long-term mating strategy for men. You end monogamy. You end the nuclear family as a form of social organisation. You end Patriarchy.

Now ask yourself, the people on the left pushing gay marriage. Do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle the nuclear family, do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle anti-cuckoldry laws and norms, do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle Patriarchy? To answer the question is to illuminate their agenda with respect to gay marriage and the plausible direction that such equality will take. (Or atleast the plausible direction they will attempt to take, unless we stop them.)

chris said...

It would be best to read part I first and then part II and part III.

The order screwed up when I was posting the comment.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Chris

Marriage is a sacrament, not a legal arrangement.

Everything else is just co-habitation. If a union isn't blessed by God then its all a sham.

Lina Ratnasari said...

This information is very helpful thank me :D :D

visit back my website ^_^
biro jasa sim
biro jasa bpkb
biro jasa perizinan
biro jasa stnk

DancingwithSwans said...

Yeah, our presidency is bad.
although, from what I can tell, the Australian government isn't very good either.

Would you be willing to do a post on books that you would recommend to everyone? Politics, religion, history, psychology, art, etc.

Tom said...

chris, you're following from 3 assumptions that very few in modern society accept. As a consequence, there's not going to be many that accept your reasoning.

SP, with the shrinkage of religion's importance in people's lives, terms that had dual meaning (marriage = sacrament, marriage = state sanctioned legal status) gradually lose their religious meaning for most of the populace. Battles about marriage are battles about legal status because that's the only meaning that's relevant to the majority of people voting.

Also, if what the state says is irrelevant to marriage, why are so many religious organizations so concerned about the state's position on the matter. After all, no-one can force God to recognize the state's declarations...

Also, most patriots I know value democracy. And democracy means that no matter where you lie on the spectrum, the "wrong" people will win a lot of the time. If you are not prepared to be ruled by those you completely disagree with, then one's sympathies would lie more with those on the other side of the island, who understood that letting people choose their own fate has no inherent worth if they're going to make the wrong decisions.

Personally, I'll go with being ruled by the "wrong" people most of the time.

jam tangan online said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.