False Morality

One of the many aspects of our society that contributes to its own deterioration is false morality. It is being found everywhere. False morality is the possession of morals without critical thought. They tend to be skewed towards ideologies that are often themselves flawed.

They should not be mistaken for differing morals that can be found on either sides of a debate, IE: the death penalty. One may believe in it based on the idea that such punishments are needed for certain crimes, as a deterrent, etc. The other side may believe against it because they abhor the killing of any person and/or they feel that, as a deterrent, it has little effect.

Those viewpoints, based on differing morals, are correct for those individuals. An example of false morality, using the above example, would be a person against the death penalty but supporting the fight against terrorism. That person is guilty of false morality.

They may hold perfectly valid reasons for both, the same reasons that would be found supported by others, however the two ideas cannot coexist as equals. One is against the killing of others while the latter results in such frequently.

Unfortunately there is no real way to combat this psychological disease. A person guilty of such, by necessity, would not be swayed by any argument nor facts simply for the reason that their possession of rationality wouldn't have allowed them to hold such ideas in the first place.

Wish we could simply take a baseball bat of enlightenment upside their collective heads. But, as they'll point out, violence has never solved anything.

Just, you know, every major and minor conflict in history.

N. Korea again. Yawn...

So N. Korea is saber rattling again. Both N. Korea and China are giving off belligerent statements concerning joint S. Korea and U.S. military exercises.

My curiosity is not what others think about these latest events. Such as these have been occurring since the 1950's. Professing shock and amazement, from anyone, simply shows hypocrisy and/or a complete lack of historical knowledge.

What I want to know is what do you think our response should be? What do you think S. Korea's response should be?

I've heard and read that everyone thinks S. Korea should show restraint. Yet what do you think the U.S. government would do if, say, someone decided to shell one of the Florida Keys? Or one of the Channel Islands?

Personally, I believe we just need to get it over with and stomp on N. Korea. For humanitarian reasons. Prolonging the existence of the current N. Korean government only prolongs the suffering of its citizens.

Or does anyone see a resolution that doesn't require military action?

What's Changed?

Now that the Republicans have more control than they had before what will change?

Nothing will change.

The same questions "plaguing" our society are the same ones that were doing so decades ago. The only real difference between then and now is that we've created new ones to help break the monotony.

Many debates you'll see thrown around tend to be debates that can only and should only be solved via a citizens morality, not the government's. These are used, however, to smokescreen and polarize.

Abortion, anyone?

This is not an issue the government will "fix" nor "solve" yet it is always brought out when votes are most needed.

With Democrats in control we've had the same problems. With Republicans in office we've had the same problems. And yet the nation is retardedly and expectantly sitting up and proclaiming, "Change is a-comin'!".

Nothing will change.

Not so long ago people were up in arms over Republicans and their chosen leader, good ol' Dubbya. The vitriol thrown about was the catch-phrase of the day.

And now that Republicans are making another showing those very same people from before are excited as pigs in, well, whatever it is those same people use for brains.

It was two years ago! TWO! Yet "Change is a-comin'!".

Nothing will change.

Not until we do.

The Myths of Faith and Reason

Last night and on to early in the morning I was pondering whether I was agnostic or atheist, all the while fervently praying for sleep to any deity that would listen.

So forgive me if my ramblings seem more tired than usual.

Many people tend to lump agnostics and atheists together. That is a misrepresentation of both. Atheism is the position that there are no gods and such. Agosticism is, well, it's all over the place. There are religious agnostics, atheist agnostics and all sorts in between. I guess the best way to describe agnosticism would be that it allows room for doubt.

Atheism has actually become a larger and more concentrated movement throughout the world. Most notably in the United States and around Europe. American Atheists is a good example of an atheistic movement.

Of course, where would Atheism be without religion? I won't go much into the particulars but I'll stick with some generalities that most should know. Others can pipe up if they like.

God(s), whichever you prefer (I'm partial to Papa Smurf), created man. Women tended to be created later, often as punishment for some infraction. I'm not kidding. So, women, let this be a lesson: beware the legacy your constant nagging imparts!

***will finish this. somehow the rest of the text did not post***