Shorter Steve Pearce October 7, 2010
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, Religion.add a comment
“National Day of Prayer and the Rights of the Majority“:
- I find the tenets of my religion burdensome, so instead of following them, I’ll accuse atheists of trying to outlaw prayer.
Actual Steve Pearce: “Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.”
Yeah: that whole “doing what Jesus said to do” is hard. Lying about atheists is easy!
(via PZ )
Certain people just shouldn’t make certain arguments November 4, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, Religion, wingnuts.1 comment so far
I probably won’t be posting much in the future: the semester has me buried in work, and I just picked up Dragon Age: Origins.
I do have to note, though, that scumbag convicted felons/political hacks probably aren’t wise to lecture on the immorality of atheists. When your opponents need do nothing but refer to your biography to refute your thesis, you’ve made a tactical error.
Analogies that just don’t work: football and dogfighting edition October 12, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, sports.7 comments
So those of you with very strong stomachs can read this piece on “Football, dog fighting and brain damage,” which has a disturbing and important point to make about the substantial dangers football players face. That’s a worthwhile subject, and I wish everyone working to shed light on the dangers of the sport the best of luck.
But I have to say, I find the comparison to dog fighting which informs the essay to be repulsive. Malcolm Gladwell avoids making the implications of the comparison explicit, and carefully sidesteps drawing direct moral equivalence, but in my reading the implication is clear, and I don’t appear to be the only one.
So the question is, as Paul Campos asks, why is dog fighting more morally repugnant than football?
The answer, it seems to me, is simple: football involves adults who willingly engage in a high-risk livelihood. Dog fighting is a “sport” in which animals who have no choice are tortured for human amusement. Dog fighting is much more morally repugnant than football for the same reason gladiatorial contests would be. This isn’t just about level of potential injury, but about consent: professional athletes can give it, dogs cannot.
Before anyone suggests otherwise, I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t do more to protect athletes, nor that football doesn’t present some morally difficult situations. But it is quite simply no comparison to an activity where powerless beings are tortured for the amusement of those with the power. Yes, I know we can perform a class and race analysis of football, and I’m open to that. But highly paid professionals taking risks with their own health is simply not comparable to the horrors dog fighting visits upon dogs.
Honestly, I thought this sort of distinction went without saying, at least among thinking people. Maybe I was wrong.
Possibly the most inane forced-birther post ever June 18, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, reproductive rights, wingnuts.3 comments
When I started this blog, I had high hopes for seriously engaging the arguments of others. Years of dealing with wingnuts has largely disabused me of that, and now I save serious argument for people who haven’t proved themselves intellectually dishonest, lazy, irredeemably ridiculous, or a combination of the three. Arguing in good faith with those who will not themselves argue in good faith only serves to legitimize dishonest discourse. Such people can only be dealt with via mockery.
Naturally, high on the mockery-only list is Renew America, which ranks right up there with WingNutDaily in terms of horribleness.* So when I found, via S,N!, this amazing display of fallacies and moral corruption: Feminism the greatest evil: the repudiation of life, I knew what had to be done. Strap in for some pure, undistilled wingnut:
Loftus wrong in calling for wingnut extremist professor to be fired June 17, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, reproductive rights, wingnuts.6 comments
I frequently agree with John W. Loftus’ arguments, and respect his defense of atheism. And I’m certainly angry as hell about forced-birthers whose violent rhetoric provides political cover for murderers. Furthermore, I’ve read few things as offensive as Edward Feser’s odious declaration that Dr. Tiller, a man who performed legal, medically necessary care to women undergoing on of the hardest experiences imaginable, is worse that Jeffry Dahmer.
That said, I can’t agree with Loftus’ views on Feser:
Feser teaches for Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California which is a community college. I call upon that college to fire him for this highly inflamed rhetoric which will probably bring on more murders of abortion doctors.
I’d be the first to call for Feser to be charged if what he’s said rises to the level of incitement, and I certainly believe he should be held accountable for the horrific implications of his argument. But he should be challenged on the poor quality of ideas, not forced out of his job for what he’s said as a private citizen. Feser is most definitely not calling for violence against abortion providers, and while his rhetoric certainly may encourage dangerous people to do horrible things, he is not calling for violence, nor does he appear to be crying crocodile tears: he seems sincere in his view that violence against doctors isn’t okay. Assuming he is sincere in that, and not simply trying to use an anti-choice dog whistle,* I think it’s incredibly dangerous to call for his firing.
Since his words were on his personal blog and not related to his job, this probably isn’t an academic freedom issue, but it is a personal freedom. Public institutions should not be in the habit of firing someone for something they say as a private citizen, and encouraging them to do otherwise is dangerous, especially in a time when academic freedom is already under assault.
When a public employee, particularly a professor, can be fired for expressing themselves in public, there is a dangerous and potentially silencing precedent, and while I hope that people of good will continue to speak out against Feser’s disgusting words, I don’t want him to be fired. Once we accept that legal speech unrelated to one’s work is sufficient cause to cost one a job, we’ve essentially given our employers veto powers over our ideas. I don’t think that’s a good idea.
Furthermore, I would argue that no one who values freedom of speech should encourage this sort of firing. History shows clearly that censoring of unpopular idea (and this would, it seems to me, be dangerously close to de facto censorship) is not a good way to defeat such ideas. The correct response to odious ideas are better ideas, not pressure to fire those whose views we find offensive. This is particularly true when a government-funded employer is doing the censoring. Private employers have greater latitude in deciding who should represent them, but the government should not be in the position of deciding which ideas are acceptable for its employees to hold.**
*And how could we be certain of the latter? It seems, given his clear statements on the matter, that we should take him at his word.
**There are obviously things one could say privately that should result in disciplinary action by one’s employer, but that circumstances should be highly limited, probably to things that affect one’s ability to do one’s job, or statements that are illegal or in violation of the institution’s mission.
Look, this vigilante stuff might seem satisfying, but it’s not okay June 4, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, News and politics.2 comments
Wow. So, Philly police were looking for a “person of interest” in the rape of an 11 year old girl, and some locals decided to take things into their own hands:
Philadelphia’s police commissioner said Thursday he will not pursue criminal charges against a group of angry neighbors who beat a man sought for questioning in the rape of an 11-year-old girl. [...]
Philadelphia’s police commissioner said Thursday he will not pursue criminal charges against a group of angry neighbors who beat a man sought for questioning in the rape of an 11-year-old girl. [...]
Surveillance video shows a man being chased by at least three people, one of whom hits him several times with what appears to be a bat or large stick. As they chase the man, a crowd gathers. The video cuts off after a police officer arrives.
It should be obvious that vigilante violence isn’t okay. Going outside the rule of law is never an optimal solution, and beating “persons of interest” as a means of detention is a dangerous precedent, to say the least. If this guy is the rapist, I hope he spends a long, long time in prison after being convicted by a jury of his peers. But we can’t have people taking the law into their own hands. I would think in the aftermath of Dr. Tiller’s murder (by a man convinced he was stopping a moral atrocity), we’d be particularly sensitive to the danger of vigilante violence-in-the-name-of-justice.
To be clear, I don’t know if these people should be charged for their detention of the suspect. I do know that three people chasing down and beating him is a chilling thought, and quite possibly a crime. Certainly we should be very, very cautious of this sort of comic-book-hero style “citizens arrest.”
That’s why I must admit to being very troubled by Samhita’s remarks:
Marc Lamont Hill makes the point that because of the erasure of the experiences of women of color and specifically black women with sexual violence in the justice system and the news media, there is an understanding within the community that no one is going to do anything about this injustice. So while we may fall on the side of never resorting to violence, many people do not have this privilege.
But of course, the authorities were actively pursuing this man, so it’s hardly safe to assume this crime was going to be erased. And while my sympathies are clear with people of color, women, poor people and other marginalized groups who are treated so unfairly within our system of law. But I don’t think it’s a matter of privilege to condemn vigilante violence. If these people used any more force than necessary detaining the suspect, they were wrong, quite clearly. You can’t be for the rule of law only some of the time.
Furthermore, marginalized communities are not, and will never be, served well by vigilante systems which, as should be obvious, are often used by those in power to terrorize marginalized groups.Vigilantism, it seems to me, far more frequently takes the form of lynchings than proper detaining of suspects.
And, as several commenters point out, if these people feel marginalized by the justice system, and there’s every reason to think they have a right to feel that way, then they certainly shouldn’t be engaging in beatings on the word of the police that this particular “person of interest” is likely guilty.
Marginalized communities are not well served by going outside the rule of law, as such lawlessness will be used against them. The only thing worse than our flawed justice system for marginalized groups is no justice system. Being for the rule of law and opposed to vigilante violence is the responsible position here. We need to work to improve our justice system, not weaken it with justifications of lawlessness.
Dear Pope Ratzi March 17, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, Religion, reproductive rights, wingnuts.1 comment so far
Go Fuck Yourself. And please remember to use a condom while doing so:
Pope Benedict XVI said on his way to Africa Tuesday that condoms were not the answer in the continent’s fight against HIV, his first explicit statement on an issue that has divided even clergy working with AIDS patients. [...]
“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”
Let me make this clear to you, My Dear Pontiff: Condoms only “increase the problem” if the choice people are making is safe sex vs no sex. Since correct use of condoms is vastly safer than unprotected sex, and since problems of AIDS in Africa aren’t going to go away by wishing everyone would approach sexuality the way you do (that is, to personally eschew it and to attack anyone who doesn’t fit your narrow views of what it should be), the choice isn’t between safe sex and no sex: it’s between safe sex and unsafe sex.
The choice is between safe sex and continued expansion of the AIDS pandemic. And your backward ass comments endanger the lives of millions.
So much for your “consistent ethic of life,” you hypocritical fucker.
[h/t]
Yet another example of why “pro-life” politicans aren’t pro-life at all February 25, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, reproductive rights, wingnuts.3 comments
Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB-179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.
It’s nice that Schultheis is eager to punish a fetus for promiscuity, and since he’s all “pro-life” he’ll no doubt be happy to tell the baby with HIV that they deserve it because mom was a slut.
I really don’t like to wish harm on others, but, seriously, where’s a case of crippling penis rot when you need one?
[Unrelated: real life is very busy around here these days. Expect things to pick back up again after the next couple of weeks, assuming I survive them with some of my sanity intact.]
Arguing about reproductive rights January 28, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, Morality, reproductive rights, wingnuts.25 comments
Over at the (soon to be renamed?) United States of Jamerica, Jamelle and beeveedee have been putting forward good-faith arguments about abortion, and while there has been some legitimate discussion, they’ve also had more than their share of trolls arguing in bad faith. In one thread, I made the rookie mistake of feeding the trolls.
I’m bringing this to your attention for two reasons: first, if you’re reading this blog, you should really also be reading Jamerica, and also to highlight this comment (emphasis mine):
Dude, an early first trimester abortion is hardly an unrecognizable blog of cells. This may help you sleep at night, but at 13 weeks, that creature looks very very human. You’re welcome to your beliefs as far as being pro choice, and certainly some even celebrate the barbarism that is abortion, but don’t let yourself believe that an early 2nd trimester abortion is just a blob, it’s a fairly well differentiated developing body of a creature of the species homo sapiens.
It is of course, unintentionally telling that anti-choicers are so concerned about when a fetus appears to be human, and yet can’t be bothered to muster up any concern for the women who they would force to give birth. Their argument goes that any sperm + egg (and this is a generous interpretation on my part) is a human life, and therefore women should be required to remain pregnant against their wills. They will happily suggest that aborted fetuses are murdered women, as one of the commenters does, while showing from their every argument their complete disdain for adolescent and adult women who, in their view, are far less valuable than the developing fetus inside them.
It’s this position, along with so many anti-choicers contempt for family planning, that gives lie to the idea that most anti-choice activists* are interested in protecting human life, not controlling women’s bodies.
*I’m talking about the hard-core blog trolls and “Concerned Women”/”Focus on the Fetus” types, not your average person who hears horror stories about late-term abortions and gets creeped out.
In which I respectfully disagree with Melissa McEwan December 17, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, constiutional issues, Morality.2 comments
If you’ve been paying attention to teh inter-nets recently, you’ve no doubt seen the story about the idiotic and bigoted parents who named their kid “Adolf Hitler.”
Melissa McEvan, over at Shakesville (one of my favorite bloggers), had this to say:
I suppose it’s too much for which to hope that Child Protective Services sees the story (along with the accompanying photo galleryof the Campbell’s Nazified home) and removes those poor kids now while they only need a decade of intensive therapy.
This is really hard for me to say, because I’m about to disagree with Melissa and (partially) defend the rights of these bigoted asshole parents, but I think it needs to be said: I don’t think CPS should take away these kids just on the basis of their parents being racist pieces of shit. While I absolutely loathe the kind of person who would raise their kids to be bigots, the kind of people who would name their child after perhaps the greatest villain in history, I’m not at all certain that bigotry really rises to the level of child abuse.
There’s two reasons for my position here. The first is that the CPS and the courts need to be very cautious in actually removing children from their homes. That is because, in general, it is best for children to stay with their families. We (rightly) tend only remove them in cases of abuse or neglect, because we know that the foster care system is horribly sub-optimal, and that breaking up families is a decision that should only be made with great care. Removing children from their parents comes at a high emotional cost to the family, and further strains an already hard-pressed foster care system.
But even with that said, it’s clearly okay to remove children from their parents or guardians care when abuse is present, so why not just name bigotry as a form of abuse? Because it sets a bad precedent, and one that’s not sustainable. What if us progressive types honestly tell our children that, in our opinion, religions that teach hatred for GLBT people are disgusting, bigoted institutions? What if we call out Fred Phelps? Could we be charged with bigotry and have our children taken away?
For that matter, should evangelical Christians lose their children for telling them that gay people are horrible sinners who are going to hell? As odious as I find that position, I don’t think so: the government must be very careful about telling parents what they can and cannot teach their children. Obviously there are limits to this thinking: it’s clearly not okay for parents to teach their children to commit crimes or to force their children to engage in dangerous behaviors, or to deny their children necessary medical care for religious reasons. But do we really want the government deciding which tenants of our belief are acceptable?
If, like me, you believe in freedom of thought and expression, then I’d argue that you have to conclude that so long as these racist parents are not abusing their children, the children should stay with them. Not because they’re good parents, but because once the government is in the business of telling us which ideas are acceptable and which are not, no one’s ideas are safe. Defending freedom means even defending the freedom of disgusting bigots.
Or so I’ll argue. I’d love to hear my readers thoughts on this matter.
