There is much debate right now over the question of is homosexuality a choice. As someone who has recently decided to become bisexual after spending more than a decade as a homosexual I believe the answer is yes homosexuality is a choice... depending on what you mean by choice. This does not mean that I believe that someone wakes up one day and says "I think I am going to be gay from now on.". As for myself when I was in my early teens I was really tormented by this question. I frankly did not want to be homosexual, not because it was what I wanted, but rather because of the pressure to conform to society. This really caused me to do a lot of soul searching and to really question why I liked guys so much. I think in large part because of how young I was at the time I was able to trace back the thought patterns which caused my homosexual tendencies. After understanding the roots of what made me gay I began to ask myself why should I change? After looking around at the girls I knew and in my school I said "to hell with that." and stuck with guys. Recently however I have decided to change my sexual orientation because I found a very impressive woman who I think will be a great mother to my kids.
The genetic arguments
We hear a lot about how there is all this genetic evidence out there that we are born gay or straight. The problem is that once you begin to look at the actual studies which have been done you find out that its nothing but a bunch of psudeo-science. Take for example twin studies on sexuality, if someone is born gay then both identical twins should be homosexual right? But according to these studies we must assume that one twin (the one which identifies as heterosexual) is a liar. If someone is born gay and one twin is gay what other conclusion is possible? Further what about ex-gays? There are a growing number of ex-gays out there, and while I do believe that some of these people have become ex-gays in order to comply with society is it reasonable to believe that all of them are trying to comply with society?
No the reality of it is that we are all born bisexual. Society and culture especially in the west has however fought a malicious war on same-sex sex. This then leads to all kinds of social problems as societies attempt to not to modify nature but to defy it. How many young men each year are forced into homosexuality because they believe the lie that one must either be gay or straight? How many lives are ruined each year because men and women who chose to "fight their nature" and be straight rather than gay find themselves ten or fifteen years into a marriage with two kids and break up the family because now they "just cant fight it anymore". There is even great pressure from the homosexual community to deny sexual choice because they are afraid it will invalidate them, thus a fourteen year old boy who wonders what his classmates look like begins to think he might be gay and is forced into homosexuality.
I wonder how many homosexuals have really stopped and thought about how insulting born gay is not only to themselves but to their loved one. "Honey I don't really love you my genes just make me horny for you."... The greatest problem with accepting that homosexuality is genetic is that it assumes that the Christians are right, that homosexuality is in fact some kind of deformity. The difference is that its a "The devil made me do it" argument dressed up as science. But why should we assume the Christians are right? Why do I or anyone need any kind of justification for enjoying sex with someone of the same gender?
There comes a larger problem however and that is the complete denial of the two aspects of sex. Sex in human society serves two functions, and the puritans have done a marvelous job at destroying the second aspect. One aspect (not the first) is that of procreation. Another aspect to sex however is recreational. There is buried deep into the psyche of modern society this evil and malicious idea that sex should only be for procreative purposes. While it is true that not everyone believes this, can it be denied that a large number of people still believe it? Look at how people still feel about masturbation, its dirty and should be kept in the dark. Sex however is a social glue, why should I not want to bring pleasure to a friend, and why should I not want them to bring me pleasure? If the sex is meant to be recreational should gender really matter? If so why? Sex for recreation is all about feeling good and making the other person feel good, so practical difference does it make if it is a guy or a girl?
Where sexuality matters is that just like hundreds of other concepts we ingest from birth (such as politics, religion, etc.) we are brainwashed into believing that it is dirty or wrong to enjoy sexual things with someone of the same sex. We then start looking for justifications to continue something we enjoy. After all if I don't have a choice then what can I do about it. Instead say "I like this person and I want to show them how much I care for and appreciate them regardless of gender." Understand that having sex to have babies is not the only reason to have sex. Know that when you have sex with someone you are showing them in the greatest possible way how much they mean to you. And finally remember that gender exclusion is a fetish, and like all fetishes it is neither good nor bad.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
A Helpful Tip to the FSP
I have been following the Free State Project(Hence forth FSP) for about five years now and have had this idea for even longer. I would like to volunteer it then to the FSP for consideration and I hope action.
I Theodore Bronson do hereby propose in an open letter to the FSP that they work to amend the the New Hampshire State Constitution, to the ends of creating a third legislative body. This body shall consist of 100 members, ten members coming from each county, each county to be divided for voting according to its population. This body shall have NO positive authority, it may not write, nor suggest any law. This body shall have the power to repeal any state law, with the exception of the constitution itself. The proposed name for this body is The House of Repeal. As a sweetener this modification should be proposed on a trial basis for five years, after which time the people of the state shall either confirm the body and its decisions or it will not and all repeals will automatically laps. Further as to operations this body shall only require 50% to repeal a law, and the law can be re-enacted by a 3/5ths vote in both houses independently, AND by signature of the governor.
Why 100 members? I understand that democracy is popular today but the 100 members and the way they are split up is based in republican (not party) principles. For reverse scale each county effectively becomes a state.
No positive Authority? Why would a Libertarian want to propose a body that could pass laws? Don't we have enough of those?
There is a Latin phrase which is escaping me which actually gave me the idea of doing this as a trial basis. This serves two functions. The first is to increase the chances of getting it passed, by allowing people an opt out if they do not like it and what it has done. The second is to set a precedent.
Why 50%? Notionally the Representative in The House of Repeal are there representing those that voted them into office, thus if 51% cannot support a law it is better that law not exist. Why the ability to reverse? Again this is to make it more appealing to the people who would have to vote for this change in the constitution, but think about the numbers I proposed. You 3/5 of the Senate must vote for the bill, 3/5 of the house of representatives, AND the governor must also sign it to keep the law on the books.
Come on Free Staters if you really want to make an impact send a shock wave throughout the nation, and prepare the way for a national house of repeal by having a state house of repeal.
I Theodore Bronson do hereby propose in an open letter to the FSP that they work to amend the the New Hampshire State Constitution, to the ends of creating a third legislative body. This body shall consist of 100 members, ten members coming from each county, each county to be divided for voting according to its population. This body shall have NO positive authority, it may not write, nor suggest any law. This body shall have the power to repeal any state law, with the exception of the constitution itself. The proposed name for this body is The House of Repeal. As a sweetener this modification should be proposed on a trial basis for five years, after which time the people of the state shall either confirm the body and its decisions or it will not and all repeals will automatically laps. Further as to operations this body shall only require 50% to repeal a law, and the law can be re-enacted by a 3/5ths vote in both houses independently, AND by signature of the governor.
Why 100 members? I understand that democracy is popular today but the 100 members and the way they are split up is based in republican (not party) principles. For reverse scale each county effectively becomes a state.
No positive Authority? Why would a Libertarian want to propose a body that could pass laws? Don't we have enough of those?
There is a Latin phrase which is escaping me which actually gave me the idea of doing this as a trial basis. This serves two functions. The first is to increase the chances of getting it passed, by allowing people an opt out if they do not like it and what it has done. The second is to set a precedent.
Why 50%? Notionally the Representative in The House of Repeal are there representing those that voted them into office, thus if 51% cannot support a law it is better that law not exist. Why the ability to reverse? Again this is to make it more appealing to the people who would have to vote for this change in the constitution, but think about the numbers I proposed. You 3/5 of the Senate must vote for the bill, 3/5 of the house of representatives, AND the governor must also sign it to keep the law on the books.
Come on Free Staters if you really want to make an impact send a shock wave throughout the nation, and prepare the way for a national house of repeal by having a state house of repeal.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The 10 Commandments of Robert Heinlein
The Ten Commandments are for lame brains. The first five are solely for the benefit of the priests and the powers that be; the second five are half truths, neither complete nor adequate.Ira Johnson
When I was still quite young my father said to me, "My beloved daughter, you are an amoral little wretch. I know this, because you take after me; your mind works just the way mine does. If you are not to be destroyed by your lack, you must work out a practical code of your own and live by it."
I thought about his words and felt warm and good inside. "Amoral little wretch-" Father knew me so well.
"What code should I follow, Father?"
"You have to pick your own."Maureen Long quoting her father Ira Johnson
I did think out most of my rules ahead of time and then wrote them down in my private journal.Father had warned me that I had no moral sense; therefore it would be necessary to anticipate decisions I would have to make. I could not depend on that little voice of conscience to guide me on an ad hoc basis; I did not have that little voice. Therefore I would have to reason things out ahead of time, forming rules of conduct somewhat like the Ten Comandments, only more so, and without the glaring defects of an ancient tribal code intended only for babaric herdsmen.Maureen Johnson
When I was still quite young my father said to me, "My beloved daughter, you are an amoral little wretch. I know this, because you take after me; your mind works just the way mine does. If you are not to be destroyed by your lack, you must work out a practical code of your own and live by it."
I thought about his words and felt warm and good inside. "Amoral little wretch-" Father knew me so well.
"What code should I follow, Father?"
"You have to pick your own."Maureen Long quoting her father Ira Johnson
I did think out most of my rules ahead of time and then wrote them down in my private journal.Father had warned me that I had no moral sense; therefore it would be necessary to anticipate decisions I would have to make. I could not depend on that little voice of conscience to guide me on an ad hoc basis; I did not have that little voice. Therefore I would have to reason things out ahead of time, forming rules of conduct somewhat like the Ten Comandments, only more so, and without the glaring defects of an ancient tribal code intended only for babaric herdsmen.Maureen Johnson
2.Thou shalt not make any graven image of a sort that could annoy the powers that be, especially Mrs. Grundy"
3.Thou shalt not takethe name of the Lord God in vain...which means don't swear, not even Jiminy or Golly or Darn, or use any of those four letter words, or anything that Mother might consider vulgar."
4.Go to church on Sundays. Smile and be pleasant but don't be too smarmily a hypocrite...support the church by deeds and money, but not too conspicuously.
5.Honor thy father and mother where anyone can see you. But once you leave home, live your own life. Don't let them lead you around by the nose."
6.Thou shalt not commit murder, murder is killing someone wrongly. Other forms of killing come in several flavors and each sort must be analyzed."
7.Thou shalt not get caught commiting adultery...and that means don't get pregnant, don't catch a social disease, don't let Mrs. Grundy even suspect you, and don't let your spouse find out ...[ or ] tell your husband what is biting you, ask his permission, ask for his help, ask him to stand jigger for you."Maureen Johnson's Commandment
8.Thou shalt not steal. "I couldn't improve that one, Father" "Would you steal to feed a baby? [There are] other exceptions... but it is a good general rule."
9.Don't tell lies that could hurt other people, but since you can't guess ahead of time what harm you lies may do, the safe rule is to not tell them at all. I do have one special case. Don't tell fibs to Mother lest thy mouth be washed out with lye soap."
"Unnumbered: "Promises must be kept, especially ones made to children. So think three times before making one. In case of tiniest doubt, don't promise.""
10.Why is there a rule against coveting your neighbors wife, but not a word against coveting your neighbor's husband?"Maureen Johnson's Commandment
11.Don't get caught."
Commentary:
- In a society in which it is a mortal offense to be different from your neighbors your only escape is never to let them find out."Maureen Johnson
- No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. He simply follows the eleventh commandment. Brian Smith "Gratitude": An imaginary emotion that rewards an imaginary behavior, "altruism." Both imaginaries are false faces for selfishness, which is a real and honest emotion.Maureen Johnson
Unnumbered: ""Thou shalt not let thy children see thee cry."
Unnumbered: "Open thy mouth, only if thou planneth to open thy limbs"
14."Thou shalt keep thy secret places as clean as a boiled egg, lest thou stink in church."
Unnumbered: "Thou shalt always live within thy household allowance."
While the rest of the human race are descended from monkeys, redheads derive from cats.Samuel Clemens
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Incest
Let us examine here the moral question of incest and the social and Christian view V.S. the rational view.
Society and Christianity as well as most world religions teach that incest is wrong. We immediately run into problems when we begin to examine the question of incest as a universal however. The major problem is that societies around the world and historically disagree with what incest is. Depending on the society it may not be considered incest for first cousins to have intercourse, in some societies its not incest for mother and son to sleep together, yet still in others its not incest for father and daughter. There is no universal definition of incest though there is universal taboo on who one may or may not sleep with, who this is however varies greatly.
Let us ask then what is the purpose of "incest bans" regardless of culture. This is much easier to answer than the question of what exactly is incest. Such bans exist not to protect the individuals involved in copulation, but rather any offspring which might occur. It was rather easy for early humans to see that certain couplings brought about higher rates of birth defects. Part of their definitions of taboo coupling depended on their beliefs of how children were conceived. For example while mother son relations are not universally considered incest, it is the nearest thing to. This is because regardless of weather or not the society was monogamous, or polygamous this coupling was obviously the highest rate of defect. Why not daughter father? My dear boy you have a cuckoo in your nest. Even (or especially) in monogamous societies women sleep with men not their husband, if she catches and the child is not hers then any pairing from a father daughter relationship is no more hazardous than non father daughter couplings. Let us agree then that in societies without gene mapping it is best to avoid especially high chances of defective children. Why especially high, as best I can determine the chance of a child being defective is somewhere between one in eight and one in ten. This is from parent offspring coupling, the number of course decreases with the distance between relations.
However let us introduce contraception into society. The question now becomes what is the moral objection to incest? The legitimate objection before was the chance of a defective child, theses chances however greatly decrease (to near zero) with proper application of contraception. Depending on ones view of abortion or the newly invented (yes it actually exits) artificial womb this decreases the chances of a defective child to zero. How can an artificial womb reduce the chances to zero? By designing it to have a better selection module than body wombs. Back to the topic. How then can incest be immoral?
In such a case the question of incest is no longer a moral question, but a question of tastes. What about the scientific evidence saying we are programmed against incest? I challenge you to actually examine that "evidence". Lets begin by acknowledged that incest does occur among humans. Further, incest is widely practiced among animals, a bitch will mate with her whelp as quickly as any other male, the same goes for all other species. What then makes humans so radically different from other animals? Because we are is not an answer it is a desire to wish away facts. "What about the UK study?". There was a recent study in the UK which took pictures of male subjects, feminized them, then asked the male about how attracted he was to the person in the photo was. Most of the males scored themselves as low level of attractiveness. Could this possibly be because they recognized subconsciously themselves in the picture, and no man (not male) enjoys thinking of himself as a woman. This survey however did not take into account the physical differences between siblings and parents, we have all met siblings that at first and third glance did not look like siblings. Its not until someone says "brother and sister" that you go "Oh ya I see it." the same applies to parents.
Incest in fact is the default setting, this much Freud was right about. When we raise our children do we not raise them to have our values? Do we not want them to find others with our values? Has not the observation in fact that Daughters marry more often then not a man much like their father, and sons marry women much like their mothers? "Yes but they are not actually having intercourse with their mothers and fathers?" and what does that have to do with anything. When we choose long term mates we do so not for the reason of a one night stand, that is to say not just because of how they look and smell. Rather we do so because they share the same values as us. This is the differences between us and every other animal. Given the fact that we now have reliable means of contraception coupling with ones close relative can in no way be considered immoral.
We humans are one of the few species that have sex not only for offspring but also for enjoyment. Sex be it intercourse of masturbation brings us closer to one another. Take for example an indecent I know of from my youth. I once knew two brothers that constantly fought with one another, one day the younger walked in on the older masturbating, it ended up with the two of them masturbating together and each other. The two had girlfriends and got married eventually yet throughout their time at home they masturbated frequently together after that. I was at their house one day when their mother observed that they had not been fighting nearly as much as they used to. This shared sexual activity brought them closer together. A sane and healthy society distinguishes between sex for pleasure, and procreation.
When incest is evil.
There are times when incest is evil, this is not due to the incest itself but rather the nature of the relationship. For example a father who sleeps with his young daughter, it is not the fact that the father is sleeping with the daughter but rather that the relationship is abusive. Also such relationships as create offspring. Regardless of weather or not the offspring is born healthy or not no one has the right to play Russian roulette with the life of a child. Any relationship between two rational and consenting individuals is of no ones business but those individuals. It is only in the case of child abuse that any such relationship is or can be considered immoral by a rational person.
Does this mean Howard's support incest?
Haven't you been reading? It's none of our business so long as its not child abuse. I have simply chosen to write this article as a means of expressing that single fact. Given that few people even among atheists have re-examined the question of incest in light of a scientific mindset, we here found it prudent to do so. It is also our hope that those who do choose to take part in such practices keep in mind the fact that they do not have the right to risk the well being of children.
My personal view
While I personally have not had any desire in my life to practice incest this does not mean that I think its my business if someone else does. My lack of desire for an incestuous relationship stems from the fact that I am the black sheep of my family, meaning that my values are radically different than theirs. This does not mean that I cannot look at them and acknowledge that they are physically attractive, it simply means that I have never desired to take it beyond "you look nice" because I find them intellectually repulsive. I do however support other peoples right to carry out such practices so long as they willingly choose to do so.
Society and Christianity as well as most world religions teach that incest is wrong. We immediately run into problems when we begin to examine the question of incest as a universal however. The major problem is that societies around the world and historically disagree with what incest is. Depending on the society it may not be considered incest for first cousins to have intercourse, in some societies its not incest for mother and son to sleep together, yet still in others its not incest for father and daughter. There is no universal definition of incest though there is universal taboo on who one may or may not sleep with, who this is however varies greatly.
Let us ask then what is the purpose of "incest bans" regardless of culture. This is much easier to answer than the question of what exactly is incest. Such bans exist not to protect the individuals involved in copulation, but rather any offspring which might occur. It was rather easy for early humans to see that certain couplings brought about higher rates of birth defects. Part of their definitions of taboo coupling depended on their beliefs of how children were conceived. For example while mother son relations are not universally considered incest, it is the nearest thing to. This is because regardless of weather or not the society was monogamous, or polygamous this coupling was obviously the highest rate of defect. Why not daughter father? My dear boy you have a cuckoo in your nest. Even (or especially) in monogamous societies women sleep with men not their husband, if she catches and the child is not hers then any pairing from a father daughter relationship is no more hazardous than non father daughter couplings. Let us agree then that in societies without gene mapping it is best to avoid especially high chances of defective children. Why especially high, as best I can determine the chance of a child being defective is somewhere between one in eight and one in ten. This is from parent offspring coupling, the number of course decreases with the distance between relations.
However let us introduce contraception into society. The question now becomes what is the moral objection to incest? The legitimate objection before was the chance of a defective child, theses chances however greatly decrease (to near zero) with proper application of contraception. Depending on ones view of abortion or the newly invented (yes it actually exits) artificial womb this decreases the chances of a defective child to zero. How can an artificial womb reduce the chances to zero? By designing it to have a better selection module than body wombs. Back to the topic. How then can incest be immoral?
In such a case the question of incest is no longer a moral question, but a question of tastes. What about the scientific evidence saying we are programmed against incest? I challenge you to actually examine that "evidence". Lets begin by acknowledged that incest does occur among humans. Further, incest is widely practiced among animals, a bitch will mate with her whelp as quickly as any other male, the same goes for all other species. What then makes humans so radically different from other animals? Because we are is not an answer it is a desire to wish away facts. "What about the UK study?". There was a recent study in the UK which took pictures of male subjects, feminized them, then asked the male about how attracted he was to the person in the photo was. Most of the males scored themselves as low level of attractiveness. Could this possibly be because they recognized subconsciously themselves in the picture, and no man (not male) enjoys thinking of himself as a woman. This survey however did not take into account the physical differences between siblings and parents, we have all met siblings that at first and third glance did not look like siblings. Its not until someone says "brother and sister" that you go "Oh ya I see it." the same applies to parents.
Incest in fact is the default setting, this much Freud was right about. When we raise our children do we not raise them to have our values? Do we not want them to find others with our values? Has not the observation in fact that Daughters marry more often then not a man much like their father, and sons marry women much like their mothers? "Yes but they are not actually having intercourse with their mothers and fathers?" and what does that have to do with anything. When we choose long term mates we do so not for the reason of a one night stand, that is to say not just because of how they look and smell. Rather we do so because they share the same values as us. This is the differences between us and every other animal. Given the fact that we now have reliable means of contraception coupling with ones close relative can in no way be considered immoral.
We humans are one of the few species that have sex not only for offspring but also for enjoyment. Sex be it intercourse of masturbation brings us closer to one another. Take for example an indecent I know of from my youth. I once knew two brothers that constantly fought with one another, one day the younger walked in on the older masturbating, it ended up with the two of them masturbating together and each other. The two had girlfriends and got married eventually yet throughout their time at home they masturbated frequently together after that. I was at their house one day when their mother observed that they had not been fighting nearly as much as they used to. This shared sexual activity brought them closer together. A sane and healthy society distinguishes between sex for pleasure, and procreation.
When incest is evil.
There are times when incest is evil, this is not due to the incest itself but rather the nature of the relationship. For example a father who sleeps with his young daughter, it is not the fact that the father is sleeping with the daughter but rather that the relationship is abusive. Also such relationships as create offspring. Regardless of weather or not the offspring is born healthy or not no one has the right to play Russian roulette with the life of a child. Any relationship between two rational and consenting individuals is of no ones business but those individuals. It is only in the case of child abuse that any such relationship is or can be considered immoral by a rational person.
Does this mean Howard's support incest?
Haven't you been reading? It's none of our business so long as its not child abuse. I have simply chosen to write this article as a means of expressing that single fact. Given that few people even among atheists have re-examined the question of incest in light of a scientific mindset, we here found it prudent to do so. It is also our hope that those who do choose to take part in such practices keep in mind the fact that they do not have the right to risk the well being of children.
My personal view
While I personally have not had any desire in my life to practice incest this does not mean that I think its my business if someone else does. My lack of desire for an incestuous relationship stems from the fact that I am the black sheep of my family, meaning that my values are radically different than theirs. This does not mean that I cannot look at them and acknowledge that they are physically attractive, it simply means that I have never desired to take it beyond "you look nice" because I find them intellectually repulsive. I do however support other peoples right to carry out such practices so long as they willingly choose to do so.
Forming the mind.
What goes in your mind
Something my family and I have consider a great deal is how we intend to raise our children. Given that we plan and putting the first one in the oven here pretty soon this is as one might imagine a rather important question. Two books which I recommend to the readers are "The Male Brain" and "The Female Brain", these books have given us quite a bit of insight not only into each other but also into the development of children.
One thing we have all agreed on is that we are going to unschool our children. This does not mean that we do not plan on educating them however. Given how bad the modern school system is and that home schooling is nothing but a copy of that same system we have decided that this is the best rout for us personally. Another reason why we have decided to go this rout is because it matters what goes in someone brain, especially at such a tender age as when children start school.
The modern education system is designed to keep students down to the level of the lowest intellect in the class. By opting for unschooling however we can not only give our children an active education, but also allow them to progress at an accelerated rate. The particular program which we intend on using with our children is one which is more akin to the older school curricula. Books such as See Spot Run, will be excluded from our home. We do not see why children should be subjected to such idiotic and pointless books. Instead we plan on exposing them to Juvenile and adult level books. Add to this that our children will not be allowed to watch television and will have at least until their teen years limited access to computers. What no television? No computer? The reasons for no television should be obvious. It is not because we believe that TV is evil, rather that most TV programs are trash, which we wish not to expose our children too. Add to this that it is important for kids to burn off their energy and they cannot do this as TV Zombies. One of the greatest things my own mother did while I was growing up was to make me earn TV time. Through homework? No interestingly enough I got 30 minutes TV for every hour I played outside.
While we plan on raising our children to love books our collection is going to be quite limited, for the same reason that we will not expose them to TV. Children internalize more than adults what they read, it becomes part of them, and part of how they think. As the children grow older what we allow them to read will of course expand. Currently when we read a book we always have in mind our children even though we ourselves may enjoy it, we ask ourselves "is this something I want my kids to read" and "What morals does this teach?" I am always conscious of music lyrics of dialogue on TV or in a movie, this is because we take in subconsciously hundreds of messages each day which influence the way we think. I am always amazed at how many people listen to a song because it has a good beat but are completely unaware consciously of the message of the song.
We need to be aware not only of what goes into our children's mind, but also what goes into our own. As it influences what and how we think. The first thing I do whenever I finish reading a piece of trash book is detox my brain with a good book that I like. Given that I consume 8 to 10 books a week this means I reread good books quite often, which is one way to know a book is good.
Something my family and I have consider a great deal is how we intend to raise our children. Given that we plan and putting the first one in the oven here pretty soon this is as one might imagine a rather important question. Two books which I recommend to the readers are "The Male Brain" and "The Female Brain", these books have given us quite a bit of insight not only into each other but also into the development of children.
One thing we have all agreed on is that we are going to unschool our children. This does not mean that we do not plan on educating them however. Given how bad the modern school system is and that home schooling is nothing but a copy of that same system we have decided that this is the best rout for us personally. Another reason why we have decided to go this rout is because it matters what goes in someone brain, especially at such a tender age as when children start school.
The modern education system is designed to keep students down to the level of the lowest intellect in the class. By opting for unschooling however we can not only give our children an active education, but also allow them to progress at an accelerated rate. The particular program which we intend on using with our children is one which is more akin to the older school curricula. Books such as See Spot Run, will be excluded from our home. We do not see why children should be subjected to such idiotic and pointless books. Instead we plan on exposing them to Juvenile and adult level books. Add to this that our children will not be allowed to watch television and will have at least until their teen years limited access to computers. What no television? No computer? The reasons for no television should be obvious. It is not because we believe that TV is evil, rather that most TV programs are trash, which we wish not to expose our children too. Add to this that it is important for kids to burn off their energy and they cannot do this as TV Zombies. One of the greatest things my own mother did while I was growing up was to make me earn TV time. Through homework? No interestingly enough I got 30 minutes TV for every hour I played outside.
While we plan on raising our children to love books our collection is going to be quite limited, for the same reason that we will not expose them to TV. Children internalize more than adults what they read, it becomes part of them, and part of how they think. As the children grow older what we allow them to read will of course expand. Currently when we read a book we always have in mind our children even though we ourselves may enjoy it, we ask ourselves "is this something I want my kids to read" and "What morals does this teach?" I am always conscious of music lyrics of dialogue on TV or in a movie, this is because we take in subconsciously hundreds of messages each day which influence the way we think. I am always amazed at how many people listen to a song because it has a good beat but are completely unaware consciously of the message of the song.
We need to be aware not only of what goes into our children's mind, but also what goes into our own. As it influences what and how we think. The first thing I do whenever I finish reading a piece of trash book is detox my brain with a good book that I like. Given that I consume 8 to 10 books a week this means I reread good books quite often, which is one way to know a book is good.
Must Reads
Recommended reading list
It is my plan to publish each week a book review, some of these will be books on this list while others will not.
It is my plan to publish each week a book review, some of these will be books on this list while others will not.
- To Sail Beyond the Sunset
- Time Enough for Love
- Job a Comedy of Justice
- Methuselah's Children
- The Number of the Beast
- The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
- Stranger in a Strange Land
- Variable Star
- I Will Fear No Evil
- Friday
- Citizen of the Galaxy
- Have Space Suit Will Travel
- Starship Troopers
- Red Planet
- Sixth Column
- Farmer in the Sky
- Tunnel in the Sky
- The Door into Summer
Non Heinlein books
- Enders Game
- Enders Shadow
- Atlas Shrugged
- Anthem
- The Fountain Head
- Troy Rising Series (John Ringo)
- Legacy of the Aldenata Series (John Ringo)
- Empire of Man Series (John Ringo)
- Looking Glass Series (John Ringo)
- A Desert Called Peace Series (Tom Kratman)
- Cyteen
- Star Force Series (B.V. Larson)
- Dorsia!
- Vor Game Series
- The Accidental Time Machine
- Eragon Series
- Limitless
- The Wheel of time Series
- The Warded Man
- The Desert Spear
- The Chronicles of Nick
- Jumper
- Reflex
- Sword of Truth Series *especially Faith of the Fallen
- Inventing Elliot
- The Unincorporated Man
- The Unincorporated War
- The Left Hand of God
- The Last Four Things
- 3 Plays by Ayn Rand
- Night Angel Trilogy
- Iron Druid Chronicles
Non Fiction books we like
- Sex At Dawn
- The Male Brain
- The Female Brain
- The Virtue of Selfishness
- Philosophy who needs it
- The Singularity is near
- The Second Coming of Steve Jobs
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Societal Assumptions
Or Pseudo Science
In the next few days I will be adding a recommended reading list, until then I will suggest to the reader that they check out the book "Sex at Dawn".
It has always amazed me that "Scientists" especially "Social Scientists" read into their studies their own prejudice. We non scientists expect the professionals to do their job and to do it as accurately as possible, this means that scientists should challenge their basic assumptions, and discover if they are right. The social scientist however challenges nothing, lest he rock his own boat. Take for example the popular views on monogamy and incest. The assumption is that Humans are monogamous, and that incest is unnatural. Is this however what the facts prove?
Take monogamy. Monogamy is so natural that the average marriage lasts seven years, the individuals involved then turn around and within 2 years get remarried. This is so chronic that it has been given a name, serial monogamy. These scientist then ignore any culture that is not monogamous, and further never bother to ask the question of is monogamy natural or unnatural. This ruse has worked so well that it has been entirely suppressed that Roman and Greek men shared their wives with friends. Further they go on to assume that men and women only have a limited amount of love. Does the love of one child come at the expense of another? Does the love of mom come at the expense of dad? How about he love of siblings or cousins? Ah but this is different. The question to be asked is why is it different? Keep in mind that because is not a valid answer.
While our society tries to escape from the traditional corrupt Christian values it becomes bound ever tighter by them. Sex and Masturbation are still considered dirty. Sex should always be fun, and why should one not want to have sex with a close friend, and why should it be anything other than the desire to express ones deepest feelings toward that individual? Instead our culture clings to the idea that sex for any reason other than making babies is bad. Does this mean that their are not individuals who buck this convention? Not at all, I am here speaking about society as a whole. What is still worse however is that in an attempt to escape from this disgusting cultural view most people take it to its opposite evil. Have sex with anyone and everyone. In doing this they do not liberate sex from its prison, instead they devalue it. If you are willing to have sex with everyone or almost everyone than what value can it have. Masturbation is much cleaner.
Instead one should be neither greedy nor miserly with sex. Spend it wisely on those whom you value, who bring joy to your life. Sex is the ultimate way of saying to someone "I am glad that you are in my life." Do not bind your mate to you with chains but instead encourage them to share their love with those who deserve it. Love like children's laughter was not meant to be dulled out like pennies to beggars, it should not be locked up in dungeons. Instead we are taught that love is limited, that to love more than one person at a time is a sin. That you cannot love two women or two men at once. Can I not love my mate Brian and my mate Maureen (not their real names) differently. My love of him does not diminish my love of her in any way, nor vice verse.
Or and this is a better example incest. Is it not amusing in a very sad sort of way to see the social scientists say incest is unnatural, and yet they cannot come up with a reason why it is so common. Yes I said common. I here am not making a moral judgment on the fact that it is common, I am not saying it is good or bad. Only that it is common. They say that we have a built in bias against people that look too closely to us, ignoring that children can look radically different from one another, or even from their parents. They even go so far as to ignore that incest has no universal definition, but rather varies widely in place in time. In some places and time relations between a father and daughter are not incest while between mother and son are, the converse is true. Even today in the United States one may marry a cousin in one state, and moving to another state violates incest laws. Before contraception laws against incest were practical. While everyone has the right to do with their own life as they please, no one has the right to harm children.
It is a cross species truism that animals have no problem breeding with their siblings or offspring. It took the mind of man to see the potential hazards and devise a way to avoid such hazards. Again leaving aside the moral question for a moment, we raise our children to have our values, and to seek mates and partners with values similar if not the same as ours. Given this fact does incest not have a certain logic to it? If a female offspring is looking for a mate, who could be closer to her value set than those who were raised to have that value set, or who raised her to have that value set. Again it took a human mind to say "there is a higher chance of defective children born of these couplings.".
While I myself have never had incestuous feelings towards my parents or siblings, this is due to the radical difference between value sets. Even as a young child of 10 or 11 I began to have a different world view than my parents, by the time I was 12 I discovered my parents believed the earth was only a few thousand years old. My siblings though personality wise close to each other, are nothing like me. Understanding how different we were excluded any opportunity.
Even among those who have never participated in incest studies show that a high number have fantasized and or desired an incestuous relationship. So why do even Atheist scientist hold to these obviously false views? Don't rock the boat. After all who wants to stand up in front of everyone and say "umm ya you know what you've been told all your life.... well its not true, these people made it up."
In the next few days I will be adding a recommended reading list, until then I will suggest to the reader that they check out the book "Sex at Dawn".
It has always amazed me that "Scientists" especially "Social Scientists" read into their studies their own prejudice. We non scientists expect the professionals to do their job and to do it as accurately as possible, this means that scientists should challenge their basic assumptions, and discover if they are right. The social scientist however challenges nothing, lest he rock his own boat. Take for example the popular views on monogamy and incest. The assumption is that Humans are monogamous, and that incest is unnatural. Is this however what the facts prove?
Take monogamy. Monogamy is so natural that the average marriage lasts seven years, the individuals involved then turn around and within 2 years get remarried. This is so chronic that it has been given a name, serial monogamy. These scientist then ignore any culture that is not monogamous, and further never bother to ask the question of is monogamy natural or unnatural. This ruse has worked so well that it has been entirely suppressed that Roman and Greek men shared their wives with friends. Further they go on to assume that men and women only have a limited amount of love. Does the love of one child come at the expense of another? Does the love of mom come at the expense of dad? How about he love of siblings or cousins? Ah but this is different. The question to be asked is why is it different? Keep in mind that because is not a valid answer.
While our society tries to escape from the traditional corrupt Christian values it becomes bound ever tighter by them. Sex and Masturbation are still considered dirty. Sex should always be fun, and why should one not want to have sex with a close friend, and why should it be anything other than the desire to express ones deepest feelings toward that individual? Instead our culture clings to the idea that sex for any reason other than making babies is bad. Does this mean that their are not individuals who buck this convention? Not at all, I am here speaking about society as a whole. What is still worse however is that in an attempt to escape from this disgusting cultural view most people take it to its opposite evil. Have sex with anyone and everyone. In doing this they do not liberate sex from its prison, instead they devalue it. If you are willing to have sex with everyone or almost everyone than what value can it have. Masturbation is much cleaner.
Instead one should be neither greedy nor miserly with sex. Spend it wisely on those whom you value, who bring joy to your life. Sex is the ultimate way of saying to someone "I am glad that you are in my life." Do not bind your mate to you with chains but instead encourage them to share their love with those who deserve it. Love like children's laughter was not meant to be dulled out like pennies to beggars, it should not be locked up in dungeons. Instead we are taught that love is limited, that to love more than one person at a time is a sin. That you cannot love two women or two men at once. Can I not love my mate Brian and my mate Maureen (not their real names) differently. My love of him does not diminish my love of her in any way, nor vice verse.
Or and this is a better example incest. Is it not amusing in a very sad sort of way to see the social scientists say incest is unnatural, and yet they cannot come up with a reason why it is so common. Yes I said common. I here am not making a moral judgment on the fact that it is common, I am not saying it is good or bad. Only that it is common. They say that we have a built in bias against people that look too closely to us, ignoring that children can look radically different from one another, or even from their parents. They even go so far as to ignore that incest has no universal definition, but rather varies widely in place in time. In some places and time relations between a father and daughter are not incest while between mother and son are, the converse is true. Even today in the United States one may marry a cousin in one state, and moving to another state violates incest laws. Before contraception laws against incest were practical. While everyone has the right to do with their own life as they please, no one has the right to harm children.
It is a cross species truism that animals have no problem breeding with their siblings or offspring. It took the mind of man to see the potential hazards and devise a way to avoid such hazards. Again leaving aside the moral question for a moment, we raise our children to have our values, and to seek mates and partners with values similar if not the same as ours. Given this fact does incest not have a certain logic to it? If a female offspring is looking for a mate, who could be closer to her value set than those who were raised to have that value set, or who raised her to have that value set. Again it took a human mind to say "there is a higher chance of defective children born of these couplings.".
While I myself have never had incestuous feelings towards my parents or siblings, this is due to the radical difference between value sets. Even as a young child of 10 or 11 I began to have a different world view than my parents, by the time I was 12 I discovered my parents believed the earth was only a few thousand years old. My siblings though personality wise close to each other, are nothing like me. Understanding how different we were excluded any opportunity.
Even among those who have never participated in incest studies show that a high number have fantasized and or desired an incestuous relationship. So why do even Atheist scientist hold to these obviously false views? Don't rock the boat. After all who wants to stand up in front of everyone and say "umm ya you know what you've been told all your life.... well its not true, these people made it up."
Legal stuff.
Some Legal Questions
One aspect of the way of life among Howard's is polyamory. While we are in support of abolition of State sanctioned marriages, and or legalization of Polygamy (Including polygyny and polyandry) we recommend that our members that they stay within the law unless they wish to become a test case before the supreme court. This means that we do not practice "marriage" as defined by the United States or most countries around the world. We instead come together in voluntary family groupings to support one another and raise children in a caring and loving home. When we say family we do not here speak of genetic links nor of traditional families, instead we mean mutual adoption. Contrary to popular myth this is not illegal. What is illegal at least here in the United States is polygamy, which as defined by law is marriage to more than one individual. This means claiming to have more than one husband (polyandry) or more than one wife (polygyny), it is currently unclear if claiming to have both a wife and a husband would be legally polygamy, we however are incline to believe so however.
To avoid legal complications we recommend that our members stay away from traditional terms associated with marriage and instead speak of terms associated with family or neutral terms. While this may appear to some to be a Symantec ruse this is in truth not the case. Words have specific meanings, for example while the term Wife has come to change quite a bit over the past hundred years, it is still culturally and legally akin to a woman owned by her husband. It is true that not all husbands think in such terms but they are few and far between. The word has further been complicated by the feminazi who have attempted to redefine in such a way as to deny men the right to act gallantly, any action such as pulling out a chair or holding open a door is seen as oppression.
Instead of using inaccurate terms such as husband and wife we opt for such terms as mate or partner or the like. This is because we recognize the absurdity of monogamy, and the diverse forms which families can take. For example it is quite possible for someone to be a mate but not a partner, or a partner but not a mate. This is because a mate is someone whom one feels amorously towards but has not committed to a relationship with, conversely a partner is someone who one chooses to raise children with. Thus a gay man and a lesbian woman may be partners but not mates. In my own family there are two men and one woman and we are working on our first child. We never refer to each other as husbands and wife, because this term as stated before is inaccurate, and we are opposed to state controlled licencing of marriage.
Wait you don't hold to monogamy?
No we do not. For those who ask that question we recommend they study history. Not only is monogamy a recent invention, not becoming wide spread until Christianity conquered the west in the 1200's, further it is impractical. When men and women could expect to be married less than twenty years because one spouse or the other would die, it is not practical in a world with a greatly increased and increasing life expectancy. The current projections for my life expectancy if technology continues to develop at its current rate is 150 years. I will not say how old I am except to say that it is less than fifty. True not serial monogamy unrealistically expects that people never change. You are suppose to be the same person she married when you were twenty, an she is suppose to be the same person at 70. Instead we recognize that people grow apart and together again, and that this is the natural way of things. We also do not see why families should be broken up just because a couple do not love each other the same way anymore. Instead we have built in a flexible family structure, so that partners can peruse their own paths and still raise children together. Just because mom broke up with dad why should dad move out. If the boyfriend is interested in joining the family can not three more easily take care of children than two? Instead our irrational society demands that dad move out before moms boyfriend can move in. Who keeps the children? Further the breakup wastes resources as now their are two households instead of one.
Often times a breakup happens when the two people involved are not in love with each other any more. Our question is why breakup? No we do not mean stay in a relationship which is painful to both, but when possible why not split up and stay together raising the children. This only requires a redefining of the relationship. It preserves resources of all parties, and allows parents to be fully involved in their children life. Redefine how? Instead of boyfriend/girlfriend mom and dad are simply roommates.
We do understand that it takes a strong person to think in these terms, as the society puts strong pressures on individuals to conform to its code. Our question however is who's good does societies current code serve? The children who must choose either mom or dad? The parents who must waste money supporting two households, instead of spending that money on ones children and oneself? Even society looses, as such a scheme makes it impossible to save and or invest, thus tying up capital in unnecessary redundant behavior. Our way however avoids these evils, as well as provides for a multitude of loving parents. Our philosophy is "dad is not the one who impregnated your mom, but the men who were their for you." yes men. and the same goes for moms.
What to do then? How do you handle property and the like?
We recommend that our members establish LLC's which holds all common property, such as a house and the like. It can also be setup so that all common bills are charged to the LLC, as well as setting up health plans and the like.
An exception for those who must get married.
There are some of our members we recognize that want marriage for whatever reason. For them we recommend a four corner marriage. This means that while the two couples hold property in common, and raise children together the couples are separate.
One aspect of the way of life among Howard's is polyamory. While we are in support of abolition of State sanctioned marriages, and or legalization of Polygamy (Including polygyny and polyandry) we recommend that our members that they stay within the law unless they wish to become a test case before the supreme court. This means that we do not practice "marriage" as defined by the United States or most countries around the world. We instead come together in voluntary family groupings to support one another and raise children in a caring and loving home. When we say family we do not here speak of genetic links nor of traditional families, instead we mean mutual adoption. Contrary to popular myth this is not illegal. What is illegal at least here in the United States is polygamy, which as defined by law is marriage to more than one individual. This means claiming to have more than one husband (polyandry) or more than one wife (polygyny), it is currently unclear if claiming to have both a wife and a husband would be legally polygamy, we however are incline to believe so however.
To avoid legal complications we recommend that our members stay away from traditional terms associated with marriage and instead speak of terms associated with family or neutral terms. While this may appear to some to be a Symantec ruse this is in truth not the case. Words have specific meanings, for example while the term Wife has come to change quite a bit over the past hundred years, it is still culturally and legally akin to a woman owned by her husband. It is true that not all husbands think in such terms but they are few and far between. The word has further been complicated by the feminazi who have attempted to redefine in such a way as to deny men the right to act gallantly, any action such as pulling out a chair or holding open a door is seen as oppression.
Instead of using inaccurate terms such as husband and wife we opt for such terms as mate or partner or the like. This is because we recognize the absurdity of monogamy, and the diverse forms which families can take. For example it is quite possible for someone to be a mate but not a partner, or a partner but not a mate. This is because a mate is someone whom one feels amorously towards but has not committed to a relationship with, conversely a partner is someone who one chooses to raise children with. Thus a gay man and a lesbian woman may be partners but not mates. In my own family there are two men and one woman and we are working on our first child. We never refer to each other as husbands and wife, because this term as stated before is inaccurate, and we are opposed to state controlled licencing of marriage.
Wait you don't hold to monogamy?
No we do not. For those who ask that question we recommend they study history. Not only is monogamy a recent invention, not becoming wide spread until Christianity conquered the west in the 1200's, further it is impractical. When men and women could expect to be married less than twenty years because one spouse or the other would die, it is not practical in a world with a greatly increased and increasing life expectancy. The current projections for my life expectancy if technology continues to develop at its current rate is 150 years. I will not say how old I am except to say that it is less than fifty. True not serial monogamy unrealistically expects that people never change. You are suppose to be the same person she married when you were twenty, an she is suppose to be the same person at 70. Instead we recognize that people grow apart and together again, and that this is the natural way of things. We also do not see why families should be broken up just because a couple do not love each other the same way anymore. Instead we have built in a flexible family structure, so that partners can peruse their own paths and still raise children together. Just because mom broke up with dad why should dad move out. If the boyfriend is interested in joining the family can not three more easily take care of children than two? Instead our irrational society demands that dad move out before moms boyfriend can move in. Who keeps the children? Further the breakup wastes resources as now their are two households instead of one.
Often times a breakup happens when the two people involved are not in love with each other any more. Our question is why breakup? No we do not mean stay in a relationship which is painful to both, but when possible why not split up and stay together raising the children. This only requires a redefining of the relationship. It preserves resources of all parties, and allows parents to be fully involved in their children life. Redefine how? Instead of boyfriend/girlfriend mom and dad are simply roommates.
We do understand that it takes a strong person to think in these terms, as the society puts strong pressures on individuals to conform to its code. Our question however is who's good does societies current code serve? The children who must choose either mom or dad? The parents who must waste money supporting two households, instead of spending that money on ones children and oneself? Even society looses, as such a scheme makes it impossible to save and or invest, thus tying up capital in unnecessary redundant behavior. Our way however avoids these evils, as well as provides for a multitude of loving parents. Our philosophy is "dad is not the one who impregnated your mom, but the men who were their for you." yes men. and the same goes for moms.
What to do then? How do you handle property and the like?
We recommend that our members establish LLC's which holds all common property, such as a house and the like. It can also be setup so that all common bills are charged to the LLC, as well as setting up health plans and the like.
An exception for those who must get married.
There are some of our members we recognize that want marriage for whatever reason. For them we recommend a four corner marriage. This means that while the two couples hold property in common, and raise children together the couples are separate.
Introductions
This blog is dedicated to the Howard Families. That is to say letting you know that your not alone, helping you get in touch with other families, and providing all around moral support. The Howard Families of Timeline 3 is not as other timeline's dedicated to extending human life, it is instead for bringing about a rational world. The culture wars of the globe and particularly of America are heating up, and any student of history can tell see that the signs all point to a dark age (hence forth Ragnarok) which will be terrible, and long if it is not stopped cold. Leaving aside the destructive power of modern super weapons (including bio and chem) the economic's of this modern barbarian age are insane enough to take the whole world down in a blaze of madness(See Ludwig Von Mises).
A secondary goal of the Howard Families is pushing for mankind to get off this mud ball. Leaving aside species suicide, there are simply too many things which can go wrong. While we recognize that the chances of an asteroid hitting the Earth are small, or that a global disease which could wipe out mankind is unlikely, neither do we believe Humanity should keep all of its eggs in one basket. To that end let me welcome you to this blog.
Signed
Chairman of the Howard Families
Theodore Bronson
Howardfamilies@Gmail.com
A secondary goal of the Howard Families is pushing for mankind to get off this mud ball. Leaving aside species suicide, there are simply too many things which can go wrong. While we recognize that the chances of an asteroid hitting the Earth are small, or that a global disease which could wipe out mankind is unlikely, neither do we believe Humanity should keep all of its eggs in one basket. To that end let me welcome you to this blog.
Signed
Chairman of the Howard Families
Theodore Bronson
Howardfamilies@Gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)