Monday, December 30, 2013

I'm not a Dog Person, So I Must Be Dumb

Whenever I meet someone and get to know that person, somehow the conversation frequently arrives
at talking about whether or not I like dogs.  The person may start talking about his/her dog and how awesome the animal is.  And of course, after a lengthy description about how cute, cuddly, and smart Rover is, they always ask me: are you a dog person?


Astonishment and disbelief are typically the first attitudes they express, and inevitably they ask "how can you not like dogs?"  Well, for one, they're gross to me.  All dogs--no matter how well groomed and cared for--have the "dog smell."  I have a fairly sensitive olfactory sense, and I can't stand dog smell. I tolerate it when I'm over at a dog owner's house (afterall, it's their house) but I could not live with a dog.  Secondly, even dogs with really short hair still have hair, and it sheds.  I can't stand shedding hair.

Third: they slobber, and lick, and it's gross.  As if all of that isn't enough, dogs also need a good deal of attention and care--forever.  They'll never be able to do much of anything on their own.  They'll never be able to cook for themselves, give themselves a bath, take themselves to the vet, or even relieve themselves on their own without making a mess.  It's like having a perpetual child--a child that smells, sheds, slobbers, tears up your trash, and barks in the middle of the night because he sees a racoon tooling around the back yard.

After explaining all of that, very visibly expressing my discomfort with slobber-factories, the person is usually still in disbelief.  And, as if there is some silently agreed upon unwritten rule, every single dog owner says the same, exact thing--and I swear to you, this happens every. single. time.

"You must not have grown up with dogs."

When first said to me, I didn't think much of it.  I politely informed the person that I did, in fact, grow up with dogs.  My parents were divorced, and in both households I had a dog.  They were really, really good dogs, too.  My dad had a miniature pincher named Seti (because his ears were cropped, and he sort of looked like Anubis).  My mom had a chocolate-brown lab, Buddy.  What a dog he was.  He was kind, pretty laid-back for the most part, and very loyal.  And even when I was married we had a dog, a little dachshund named Hanz.  He was a good dog, but a bit of a pain in the ass.

But damnit, I'm still not a dog person.  I started to be less polite about it because I realized the statement "you must not have grown up with dogs," actually highlighted a major problem with American political discourse: people have lost the ability to understand differing opinions.

"You must not have grown up with dogs," indicates an assumption from the dog owner that since I do not like dogs, I must not have had the same experiences as the dog owner.  The dog owner is essentially saying "well, if only you had grown up with dogs, then you would assuredly still love dogs."  The dog owner believes this--consciously or subconsciously--because knowing his own love for dogs, he simply cannot fathom that another human being could have been exposed to dogs and somehow not love them.  Do you see where this is going?

"He clearly has never talked to someone who is on welfare, or else he wouldn't want to scale down
welfare.  If only he would talk to these people in poverty, he would want to keep a robust welfare system."

"He must not have ever been exposed to Christianity, or else he would be a Christian.  If only he knew Jesus the way I do, he would love Jesus and be saved."

"If only he had met, or talked with, a gay person, he would not hate homosexuality.  He must be uneducated, because educated people can't believe homosexuality is a sin.  He must not have thought about X, Y, or Z, because if he did, he would believe homosexuality is okay."

"He probably hasn't read the bible, because if he did then he would believe that homosexuality is wrong, because the bible says so.  He's probably not even a real Christian--he's probably one of them Catholics or something."

"He must be ignorant/uneducated/unintelligent/intellectually dishonest, because he doesn't believe in the Liberal message.  Only smart, educated people are capable of understanding liberal ideas."

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but the problem is that nearly everyone believes that their opinions are absolute, objective truth.  It's an exercise in cognitive dissonance on a massive scale because when asked, people will admit that they're not always right and that they're not perfect.  Most people will honestly admit that they do not, in fact, have all the answers.  Yet when people are challenged on their opinions and beliefs, rarely will they admit that they're wrong, and essentially people subconsciously believe that they are always 100% right about their opinions.

Political and intellectual discourse never goes anywhere in America because no one ever bothers to figure out how someone arrived at a conclusion so different from their own.  Instead, all they do is scoff and snicker to each other about how "ignorant" the other side is.  Such attitudes are indicative of what I like to call insular intellectual stagnation.  They are so set in their opinions that they have trapped themselves inside their own minds, and they have rendered themselves incapable of understanding what transpires outside their inner-world.  Newsflash: educated people who study the same information can still arrive at vastly different conclusions.  It happens all the time.

I admit that I am guilty of saying "how the hell can someone actually think this way?"  But thetry to understand how the other person arrived at their conclusion.  I examine their logic to determine if their position makes logical and intellectual sense.  Few people do that anymore, because they're afraid they may have to change their minds.
difference is that I actually

So for anyone who thinks that Republicans are jackasses because of their beliefs (because men like Michael Moore aren't jackesses since their causes are "righteous), perhaps you should stop assuming that you're always right.  I guarantee that if you actually examined the logic behind your ideas, you would see the gaping holes in your belief system.

In a world where everyone is always right, then who the hell is actually wrong?

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Freedom of Speech and the Wrong Side of the Tracks

So it would seem that A&E came to its senses and realized that it would be an incredibly bad idea to
suspend Phil Robertson from his own show.  Their move was likely motivated more by ratings potential than Constitutional principle, but it was the right move nonetheless.

So what was the meaning of this scenario?  What have we learned?  Well, for me, this just confirms how monumentally rediculous, hypocritical, and illogical Liberalmerica can be.

Oh right, I forgot that Phil Robertson is an "ignorant bigot," and a "racist."  At least, that's what mainstream Liberalmerica wants me to think.  As usual, Liberalmerica got it way, way wrong by making another failed attempt to frame the discussion around gross misinterpretation.  It's fairly depressing that so many Americans are so incapable of thinking for themselves that they actually bought the crazy Liberalmerica was selling.

Let's get one major factoid straight: Phil Robertson did not engage in hate-speech.  Sorry Liberals, but misquoting and blatantly ignoring the entirety of his words does nothing to damn the man.  Phil Robertson did not say that he hates homosexuals: in fact, he said the exact opposite.  Robertson expressed his thoughts on morality as he sees it.  Just because he thinks a particular lifestyle is immoral and sinful does not mean that he hates anyone.

Liberalmerica seems to have a hard time understanding that concept.  What if Robertson had talked about how he thinks lying is immoral and sinful, and that lying can lead to other terrible things?  Would Liberalmerica assume that Phil Robertson hates liars?  Probably not, but that's only because Liberalmerica has a limited intellectual capability.  They are only capable of engaging in discussion on the premise that their beliefs are universally true.  Since there are likely few Liberals who think lying is actually okay, they could easily accept the message that "lying is wrong," and Liberalmerica would not deem such a message as "hate speech."

Essentially, Liberlamerica only permits freedom of speech when they deem said speech to be unvierally true.  It's a safe bet to assume that most liberals don't believe homosexuality is a sin, and it's a safer bet to assume that many homosexuals are liberal (considering homosexuals aren't very welcomed in Conservative circles).  So when people made a huge deal out of Robertson's words, called it hate-speech, and called for his dismissal from A&E, it's safe to say that Liberalmerica was behind it, and they showed themselves to be intellectually mistaken.

Anyone who has read George Orwell's essay "The Freedom of the Press," would never have called for Robertson's removal, because doing so would be akin to silencing him.  "Liberals are afraid of liberty," Orwell wrote, and they show their fear by attempting to silence speech that is deemed to be unpopular.  If one truly believes in freedom of speech and freedom of thought, then one must allow even awful things to be said so long as those things aren't meant to incite violence and are not blatantly slanderous.

"Well, Jack, freedom of speech also means that I have the freedom to take a shit allover Phil Robertson."  Yes and no.  First of all, to flame Robertson for his views would be an exercise in the intolerance that Liberalmerica claims to combat.  "Tolerance," does not mean you only tolerate like-minded individuals.  Secondly, flaming someone for expressing their views is a method of intimidation, and it is meant to stop him from exercising his freedom of speech.  Intimidation is not an exercise in freedom of speech.

If Americans do not have the safety of expressing their opinions without fear of retribution--in this case, losing your job simply because of your moral convictions--then Freedom of Speech cannot truly exist.  True, I disagree with Robertson's statements, but I didn't call for him to be removed from TV, and if he said those remarks in my presence, I would not have insulted him, nor would I have tried to bully him into silence.

I'm sorry, Liberalmerica, but I don't want a country in which everyone has to agree with your agenda, and those who don't agree need to just sit down and shut up.  The most salient lesson from this is that Liberalmerica proved that they are just as intolerant as their Conservative counterparts.  The sad irony is that Liberals are too entrenched in their pretentious intellectualism to recognize their own hypocrisy.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Merry Christmas!

Two traditions here at Christian Fearing God-Man:  "Merry Fucking Christmas," by Denis Leary, and a scantily-clad young woman.

Merry Christmas!!!

Because if Christmas can't be sexy, then what's the point?!

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Duck Dynasty Done Dirty? ~By AHB

The Anonymous Howard Beale: The Balrog of Truth
I have watched a few episodes of Duck Dynasty, and yes while I know it is Scriptality TV, it is mildly entertaining to immerse yourself in the mindless maw of the mass media from time to time. For those of you who don't know, Phil Robertson who is more or less the focus of Duck Dynasty gave an interview to GQ where he basically lambasted homosexuals for sinning, and he is now suspended from his own show by A&E. This show in particular is pretty upfront with it's traditional Christian overtones and you are left with little doubt as to what has shaped their supposed opinions. So why is his "Christianity" a problem now? Read on.

Before I get into what the bigger implications are, let me just say I have no problem with the man believing whatever he wants. For now, this place is still America where you have the freedom of expression. While I am an Agnostic and prefer to come to my own conclusions about such monumental insights and tend not to believe verbatim an inflexible and contradictory dogmatic script from nearly 2,000 years ago, I nonetheless do believe in the constitution's first amendment which is a little more current and to put it bluntly; more humane.

The backlash is mostly stemming from GLADD, which is a prominent LBGT advocacy group. They released a statement condemning Phil Robertson for his "Vile and Extreme" comments towards homosexuals, and while I do agree with them up to a point, I draw the line at them being two-faced when it comes to them wanting him silenced, for being a "stain on A&E and their sponsors."

So let me get this straight (pun)... A group of people who use their freedom of speech to share their beliefs has shown public disdain for someone who uses their freedom of speech to share his beliefs? I thought this group was for equality? Maybe they have championed the Feminist definition of equality, where it's only equality when your side benefits.

The real conundrum of all this is... Phil Robertson, GLADD, GQ, and A&E have all made the correct decisions for themselves. Phil Robertson has done nothing wrong other than displaying ignorance with conviction, GLADD was given a golden opportunity to rake him over the coals to further their agenda of thought control, GQ is defending it's profit margins by spawning controversy like any successful media outlet must do, and A&E can choose not to have him as a representative of their network. What the hell sort of mess is this?

I suppose the reason Christians are upset is because they feel Robertson is being punished for simply being Christian, which is not the case. He is being punished because an advocacy group took exception to what he said and stirred the pot, which forced A&E's hand.

Now in a perfect world, all Phil Robertson would have said in the article is his one comment about "not agreeing, but not judging." Instead, he first made comments that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and whoring, and insisted that they could go to hell. Perfect world GQ would have refused to publish the inflammatory section of the interview, but that is just too tame. Perfect world GLADD would have shown disappointment without the drama of trying to silence him, and perfect world A&E would not have given in to hysteria and merely passed on the cost of losing of sponsors to his show or set a time frame for suspension. Alas this is not a perfect world.

As Jackie has posted in the past, it's as if people are addicted to being offended/playing victim. A victim is powerless to change their situation on their own, but what happens when both sides play victim? I know you have heard it before, some dude murders his wife and blames it on his harsh mother, or some chick goes fatal attraction and blames daddy issues. Passing the blame to someone else is quickly becoming the default position.
So who do I deem the victims in all this? A&E as strange as that sounds. The gay advocates won't feel much of a setback to their agenda by his comments, no matter how insensitive they were. Phil Robertson knowingly jumped into a hornets nest and got stung. GQ was licking their lips over the juicy media steak they were just handed. A&E played no part in creating this mess whatsoever, but now is left with the only real mess to clean up. Sort of like Democrats, Republicans, Lobbyists, and then the American people themselves... which one do you think is holding the bag when the deals are done?

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Breast Cancer Survivor Picture "Controversy": Grow Up, People

It seems like the main topic of discussion in my mind, lately, is just how hyper-sensitive society is becoming.  It seems like no one can say anything without being called offensive or a bigot.  Hell, apparently it is racially offensive for white girls to dress up in a geisha outfit without first asking for permission from . . . well, I guess from every person of Japanese descent?

But now, the "controversy" is coming from a picture featured in a headline article in the New York Times.  The article was about raising awareness of the high risk of cancer in Israeli women, and their lack of access to gene testing.  That seems like a fairly noble topic of discussion, but the prudes and childish weirdoes got all upset over this photo:

Oh my god!  Women have NIPPLES?!  Why the hell would the New York Times let that cat out of the bag?!  I thought we were all supposed to just pretend that there is nothing but a void underneath women's clothing!

This image was not presented for the purpose of objectifying the woman's breast.  This picture is of an actual breast cancer survivor.  On her left breast is a scar from a lumpectomy.  The picture was meant to be provacative, but not in a sexual way.  But of course, some asshats didn't see it that way.  Some are arguing that the image does objectify this woman because it doesn't show her face (nevermind the fact that the woman wished to remain anonymous).

There are even some people who are claiming that it is offensive because of her star of David tattoo because it "reminds them of the Holocaust."  The woman is proudly Jewish, and she got the tattoo in order to express pride in her heritage.  This is all the better considering the article is about Israeli women (calm down, Jersey, I know that not all Israeli women are Jewish).

But of course, the main controversy is over the fact that her nipple is almost exposed.  Three words:  Jesus.  Fucking.  Christ.  For the life of me, I can't understand why some elements of American society are so uncomfortable with the notion of sexuality that their delicate sensibilities can't even handle a partial breast exposure.

"But Jack, think about the children!"  C'mon, can we please stop pretending like kids have never, ever seen boobs?  Every single one of us can remember a time when we saw a pair of boobs that we probably weren't "supposed" to see.  And as far as I can tell, we're not all a bunch of sexual deviants out to rape each other.

I am all about teaching our children the virtues of being responsible with their sexuality, but I would argue that America's attempt to make children ashamed of their sexuality is harmful.  Instead, we need to teach our children that the human form is a beautiful thing.  The image above is not pornographic, and it is not meant to make its male readers have ants in their pants.  The image is meant to show the beauty of the human form despite nature's best efforts to destroy it.

American society needs to stop acting so damn prudish.  Shying away from a partially exposed breast is beyond childish.  To those whose delicate sensibilities are offended by that photo I say this: Grow up.