Category: philosophy

bookmark_borderA note to the Virginia Flaggers

Posted on by Marissa

Posts like this make me smile and give me a little bit of hope for humanity:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Virginia Flaggers (@the_virginia_flaggers)

Unfortunately, however, someone left a comment on the post which does the exact opposite. The comment stated: “God is not a lover of slavery.”

To which I would respond: 

God is also not a lover of inflicting excruciating, unbearable pain on people who did nothing wrong.

Nor is He a lover of obliterating everything that makes life worth living.

Nor is He a lover of self-righteous bigots who go out of their way to hurt others.

And He’s also probably not a lover of cruel, nasty bullies who have no tolerance for anyone who is different from themselves. 

So there’s that.

bookmark_border“How many of you commenting on this…”

Posted on by Marissa

“How many of you commenting on this have ever had: mumps, measles, rubella, chickenpox, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough? At age 6 to 7 I had the mumps, measles, chickenpox, rubella. My parents were concerned when I had the measles and the chickenpox at the same time because the doctor questioned if I might not survive. I never want any other child to go through that. Would that the vaccines had been available when I was young.”

This is a comment that I saw on a social media post about the state of Florida’s decision to abolish vaccine mandates. This comment just didn’t sit right with me. At first glance, it’s hard to argue against someone who themselves have had a disease that vaccines are designed to prevent, and who wants to spare others from the same suffering. But I see the issue of vaccines completely differently. And the person who made this comment doesn’t seem open to other perspectives at all. She seems to think that because she has actually experienced what it’s like to have the diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent, her perspective (as well as the perspectives of those who have had similar experiences to her) is the only one that matters on this issue. With this comment, she is subtly claiming the moral high ground for herself and dismissing the experiences and perspectives of other people.

Here is my perspective:

Personally, vaccines had a huge negative impact on my childhood. I remember, from the ages of roughly four to six, the sickening feeling of dread that I would experience each time that my mom told me that I had a doctor’s appointment coming up. At each appointment, I was subjected to painful, invasive, and gruesome shots. I didn’t have the power to say no; I didn’t have any say in what would happen with my body. The dread that I felt leading up to each appointment, the sick feeling in my stomach that I experienced when waiting for the doctor to inform me how many shots I was about to be subjected to, is one of the most vivid memories of my childhood. The routine practice of vaccination was by far the biggest negative aspect of my life during those years.

I don’t believe in mandatory vaccination, because I don’t want any other child to go through what I experienced.

I wish that vaccines hadn’t been available when I was young, because then I wouldn’t have had to get them. I wouldn’t have been subjected to the years of dread and pain that mandatory vaccines inflicted.

That’s my experience.

My experience matters, and my perspective matters, just as much as the experiences and perspectives of people who got sick and wish that they had been able to get a vaccine.

It’s hard to argue against someone who has gotten so sick that they nearly didn’t survive, and wants to spare others from having the same experience. But my perspective is just as valid as this person’s, my experiences just as important and deserving of empathy. I suffered as well, and also want to spare others from having the same experience that I did. I’m tired of being silenced, attacked, insulted, called an “anti-vaxxer” and “anti-science,” my perspective disregarded again and again in favor of pro-vaccine voices.

It’s hard not to have empathy for someone who nearly died from a contagious disease. But the little girl who was subjected to painful and unwanted medical procedures deserves empathy too. Having a needle injected into your arm is not nothing, particularly when it happens again and again, month after month, year after year. For young children, as well as some adults, getting a shot is experienced as painful and gruesome, and this is a completely valid experience. Living in constant dread for years is not nothing. Being denied any say in what happens to your body is not nothing. The suffering inflicted by vaccines is very real. Vaccination significantly reduces quality of life. And these harms need to be weighed against the benefits of vaccination in preventing diseases. Because the little girl who existed 30 years ago, and who wasn’t allowed to voice her perspective or stand up for herself, matters. The fact that one little girl had mumps, measles, chickenpox, and rubella, is no reason for another little girl to be punished by having her rights violated, her preferences disregarded, and her quality of life destroyed.

As sympathetic as this commenter seems, she, like so many pro-vaccine people, is denying the existence of any perspectives other than hers. She went through something bad, so all that matters is preventing other people from experiencing the same bad thing that she did. She wishes that she had gotten vaccines when she was a child, so all children must be forced to get them. She has a preference, and so her preference must be imposed on everyone. My experiences are different from hers, and so they don’t matter.

But in reality, her experiences do not negate mine. Her desire to prevent suffering does not negate my fundamental rights. Her preference to have gotten vaccines is not a license to impose this preference on other people. Her wish that vaccines had been available to her as a child, does not make it okay to force them on other children against their will.

Let’s circle back to the question, “How many of you commenting on this have ever had: mumps, measles, rubella, chickenpox, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough?” By asking this question, the commenter seems to be implying that if someone hasn’t had one of these diseases, then they’re in no position to give their opinion on the issue of vaccines. She is implying that having had some of these diseases gives her the moral high ground and makes her perspective more valid than others. But it’s just as important and relevant to ask: “How many of you commenting on this have ever been subjected to years of constant dread and pain due to being forced against your will to get vaccines?” I have. And that’s just as important, and just as relevant, as having had a vaccine-preventable disease. Contrary to what this commenter seems to be implying, my perspective is just as valid as hers, and just as valid as anyone else’s.

bookmark_borderBullying people for being “incels” is the same as attacking the Confederates for being “losers”

Posted on by Marissa

I was browsing on Substack the other day, and while reading an article about a random topic (link here), I came across the below comment:

Anyone who unironically uses the word “incel” as a pejorative is demonstrating severe sociopathic tendencies, in my opinion. Imagine how sadistic and devoid of compassion you have to be in order to bully people who are unattractive and unpopular SIMPLY FOR BEING UNATTRACTIVE AND UNPOPULAR. If that’s not an example of kicking someone while they’re down, I don’t know what is. These people are acting as if unattractiveness and lack of popularity is a mortal character flaw in and of itself–as if it makes their target morally irredeemable and sub-human–as an ad-hoc method of justifying actual bullying and evil behavior toward those who most likely don’t deserve it. And the people who throw the “incel” label around casually are typically the ones who claim to be the most compassionate. What a joke. I know someone’s going to read my comment and respond with “You sound really upset about this. You sound like an incel! This is exactly what an incel would say!”

I agree 100% with this comment and feel that a very similar point could be made about the Confederacy.

People attack and insult the Confederacy, and argue that it shouldn’t be honored with statues and monuments, because it lost the war. As if losing a war somehow demonstrates poor character. As if a lack of population, resources, and supplies is somehow a character flaw.

Losing a war has nothing to do with character. Winning and losing are determined by things such as population size, resources, and supplies. These are things that have nothing to do with character. Which side wins, and which side loses, has nothing to do with which side was right and which side was wrong.

People who attack and insult the Confederates for being “losers” are attacking and insulting the Confederacy for having a smaller population, fewer supplies, less advanced technology, and a less industrialized economy.

When you call the Confederates “losers,” you are acting as if a lack of population, resources, and supplies is a character flaw. Just as, by using the word “incel” as a pejorative, you are acting as if unattractiveness and lack of popularity are character flaws. But these aren’t character flaws. And there is no logical reason whatsoever to believe that they are.

People who call Confederate soldiers “losers” as a pejorative are demonstrating the exact same attitude as those who use the word “incel” as a pejorative. Just as the latter group of people are choosing to bully those who are unattractive and unpopular simply for being unattractive and unpopular, the former group of people are choosing to bully a nation that had a small population, fewer supplies, less advanced technology, and a less industrialized economy… simply for having a small population, fewer supplies, less advanced technology, and a less industrialized economy.

As the above commenter correctly points out, this way of thinking is sadistic, completely devoid of compassion, and is the very essence of kicking someone when they’re down. It’s also completely irrational and has no basis in logic or reason.

And, as the commenter also correctly points out, the people who do this are generally the people who claim to be the most compassionate. When in reality, their decision to equate a lack of attractiveness, popularity, resources, and supplies with poor character demonstrates not only their complete and utter lack of logic, but also their complete and utter lack of compassion for the people who need it the most.

bookmark_borderExcellent post from Dave Smith…

Posted on by Marissa

This truly hits the nail on the head:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Dave Smith (@theproblemdavesmith)

(source here)

And some of the comments on the post are spot on as well:

“The thing about Kimmel is that he has never been funny.”

“The funniest thing about Kimmel was the irony of him losing his job for something he celebrated when it happened to others.”

“People need to realize Kimmel would applaud you losing your job for anything you say or think that doesn’t match left wing politics.”

bookmark_borderHegseth is right to restore the Reconciliation Memorial… but not for the reason stated in this article

Posted on by Marissa

I recently saw a great opinion piece in the Hill by Donald Smith, arguing in favor of the decision to restore the Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery. Smith presents evidence that the “Naming Commission” that committed this despicable action did not actually have the backing of the American people. Although this may very well be true, in my opinion, this isn’t really relevant to the fact that removing the monument was wrong. So while I appreciate this opinion piece and Smith’s courage in speaking out in favor of the monument, my reasoning for opposing the monument’s removal is a bit different.

“By ordering the monument back, Hegseth is subverting Congress and the will of the American people,” said Ty Seidule, the intolerant bigot who served as the vice-chair of the “Naming Commission.” This may be true, and it also may be false, as Smith argues in his opinion piece. But the truth is that ordering the monument back is the right thing to do, regardless of the desires of Congress or the American people. This is because removing statues and monuments is objectively wrong, regardless of how many people support it. If undoing a horrifying, repugnant, and disgraceful atrocity constitutes subverting Congress and the will of the American people, then Congress and the American people deserve to have their will subverted.

In 2024, members of the “Naming Commission” stated that by passing the 2021 NDAA, which contained the provision to create the commission, “bipartisan supermajorities of 81 senators and 322 representatives declared it was time to try to end Confederate commemorations.” Smith argues that this wasn’t really the case, because the creation of the commission was merely one small part of the NDAA, which is a huge bill, and voting in favor of the bill itself doesn’t necessarily mean that one supports that particular part. This argument may be right, but more importantly, ending Confederate commemorations is objectively immoral. Ending Confederate commemorations inflicts horrific and unbearable pain on innocent people, destroys everything that makes life worth living, and sends the message that people who are different from the norm should not be allowed to exist. Merely reading the words “try to end Confederate commemorations” make me feel physically sick. The thought that anyone would even remotely support this is absolutely disgusting. Therefore, ending Confederate commemorations is morally wrong, regardless of how senators and representatives feel about it.

And in the commission’s final report, they state, “in passing the 2021 William M. ‘Mac” Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act, the United States Congress determined that Confederates and the Confederacy no longer warrant commemoration through Department of Defense assets.” Except that Confederates and the Confederacy do warrant commemoration. Because people who are different from the norm deserve to feel included, represented, and reflected in public art. We deserve to have lives that are worth living. We deserve to feel that we are allowed to exist. And without commemoration of Confederates and the Confederacy, none of these things are the case. Therefore, Confederates and the Confederacy do warrant commemoration. This is objectively true, regardless of what the U.S. Congress, or anyone for that matter, believes. Even if the U.S. Congress did actually determine that Confederates and the Confederacy no longer warrant commemoration, the only thing this signifies is that the U.S. Congress is wrong.

Seidule alleges that the Arlington monument “clearly commemorates the Confederacy and its purpose – chattel slavery.” First of all, I don’t get why it has become so popular over the last few years to call slavery, “chattel slavery.” Why not just call it slavery? Second, slavey was not the purpose of the Confederacy. Seceding from the U.S. and forming an independent country was. That’s why the Confederacy symbolizes rebellion, defiance, fighting back against authority, and being different. Third, yes, the monument clearly commemorates the Confederacy. And this is bad, how? That’s right. It isn’t. 

Removing Confederate monuments is objectively morally wrong, because it inflicts severe pain on innocent people, destroys everything that makes life worth living, and is a statement that people who are different from the norm should be obliterated from existence. The actions of the “Naming Commission” would be immoral even if they had the popular mandate that they claim to have. Removing Confederate monuments would be the wrong thing to do, and putting monuments back up would be the right thing to do, even if every single person in the U.S. and every single member of Congress felt otherwise. What is wrong is wrong, and what is right is right, regardless of the wishes, thoughts, feelings of the American people and their representatives.

bookmark_borderEverytown’s logical fallacies on Stand Your Ground laws

Posted on by Marissa

In a recent social media post, the Firearms Policy Coalition called attention to anti-rights organization Everytown for Gun Safety’s “research” regarding Stand Your Ground laws.

(Everytown refers to these laws as “shoot first laws,” which many commenters on the post correctly point out is a manipulation of language designed to make said laws seem reckless and unreasonable, when in reality they are not.)

“Shoot first laws are unpopular,” Everytown proclaims in large font at the very top of their page, blatantly committing what is possibly the most basic logical fallacy, equating popularity with goodness. Contrary to what Everytown presumes, how popular or unpopular something is, has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. Okay, Stand Your Ground laws are unpopular. So what? What does that have to do with whether they are good or bad? Nothing.

“Legal experts and advocates also oppose Shoot First laws,” Everytown continues. A similar point applies here: the fact that legal experts and advocates oppose these laws, has nothing to do with whether the laws are good or bad. There’s no rule stating that whatever experts and advocates think is automatically true. Experts and advocates are simply people, just like anyone else. They could be right in their beliefs, or they could be wrong. 

“In 2012, the NAACP called for a repeal of these laws due to their effects of increasing crime and promoting racist violence.” The same point applies here: the fact that an organization called for a repeal of these laws, has nothing to do with whether or not the laws should actually be repealed. There’s no rule stating that organizations’ policy positions are automatically correct. Organizations can be right in their policy positions, or they can be wrong. An additional point also applies here: just as the popularity of a law is irrelevant to its goodness or badness, the effects of a law are irrelevant as well. The fact that a law would increase crime and/or “racist violence” has nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad. Goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law or policy, not the effects. Additionally, I do not see how it would be possible for Stand Your Ground laws to promote “racist violence,” because Stand Your Grounds laws do not have anything to do with race.

And furthermore, there is a very important point to make about the NAACP itself. Over the past five years, through the positions that it has taken and statements that it has issued regarding the statue genocide, the NAACP has established itself as an organization dedicated to inflicting horrific, unbearable pain on innocent people, destroying everything that makes life worth living, and obliterating from the face of the earth every person who is different from the norm. Due to the bigotry, cruelty, aggressive intolerance, and complete moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the NAACP, I would argue that there is a very strong negative correlation between whether the NAACP has expressed support for a policy position, and that policy position’s likelihood of being right. In other words, the fact that the NAACP called for a repeal of Stand Your Ground laws is strong evidence that these are good laws that should not be repealed.

“And in 2015, the American Bar Association also released a report recommending the repeal of Shoot First laws.” A similar point to the ones that I’ve made above, applies here: the fact that the ABA recommends repealing Stand Your Ground laws, has nothing to do with whether they actually should be repealed. There’s no rule stating that the ABA’s position on an issue is automatically correct. The ABA might be right on an issue, and also it might be wrong.

“According to an expert quoted in the report, ‘If our aim is to increase criminal justice system costs, increase medical costs, increase racial tension, maintain our high adolescent death rate and put police officers at greater risk, then this is good legislation.'” I don’t see how a criminal justice system would cost money, and so I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase “criminal justice system costs,” whatever the heck that means. I also don’t see how increasing medical costs is a bad thing, because in every transaction, the buyer of a product or service pays money and the seller of the product or service receives the exact same amount of money, so every transaction is a net neutral. Furthermore, I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase racial tension, because they have nothing to do with race. Most importantly, as I’ve stated above, all of this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Stand Your Ground laws are good or bad. The effects of a law have nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad, because goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law, not its effects. By listing all of these irrelevant factors as if they are somehow significant, the ABA and their alleged expert demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes good and bad legislation.

So, yeah. Stand Your Ground laws are correct, because people have the right to use deadly force against people who trespass on their property. Trespassing on other people’s property is wrong, and therefore people forfeit their rights if they do it. It’s morally abhorrent to focus one’s criticism on the victims of wrong actions – as Everytown, the NAACP, and the ABA do – rather than the perpetrators.

bookmark_border“They should have done it during the day so we could see your tears”

Posted on by Marissa

Why, exactly, is it considered a good thing to take actions that inflict pain on other people?

Why is this considered something positive?

Why, when a person takes actions that harm another person, do you believe that this reflects badly on the person being harmed, rather than the person doing the harming?

Please explain, John Maxwell.

Because as far as I can tell, this is the exact opposite of how morality works.

Last time I checked, taking an action that causes another person to cry – in other words to suffer, to be harmed, to be in pain – is something bad, not something good. And therefore I’m confused as to why someone would advocate in favor of that.

Please explain, John, how you came to hold moral beliefs that are the exact opposite of how morality actually works.

“And like the ones we still have to hear about over a decade after Obama was your president twice as long as the confederate states lasted.”

Same questions. Why is it considered good to inflict pain on other people? Why is this considered positive? Please explain this, Ronald Wendel.

Additionally, what does the length of time something lasted have to do with whether it was good or bad? What exactly is the logical connection there? Please explain.

Yes, Obama was president for eight years. The Confederate States of America lasted for four years.

What does this have to do with whether Obama’s presidency was good or bad?

What does this have to do with whether the Confederacy was good or bad?

What does this have to with whether or not the Confederates were justified in seceding from the United States and forming their own country?

That’s right. It doesn’t.

Maybe next time. refrain from making statements that have absolutely no basis in logic and make absolutely no sense. Just a thought.

bookmark_border“Don’t give up? That’s what you did at Appomattox.”

Posted on by Marissa

Um, yes.

The Confederates gave up at Appomattox.

So?

The Confederates gave up at Appomattox after four years of being outnumbered, outgunned, and out-supplied. After four years of fighting an enemy that had a larger population, more money, and a more industrialized economy than they did.

Yes, the Confederates gave up at Appomattox.

What is the moral significance of that fact?

What does that have to do with whether the Confederacy was good or bad?

How, exactly, does that reflect badly on the Confederates, as this commenter seems to be implying it does?

The correct answers to these three questions:

There is none.

Nothing.

It doesn’t.

bookmark_border“Twenty-five million Americans…”

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Um, yes. And that is bad, how?

If force or violence is justified to advance an important political objective, that means that killing a person is OK if doing so is necessary to advance the political objective. I don’t get why it’s considered bad or surprising that someone who believes that violence is necessary would actually be willing to use it. And as the Firearms Policy Coalition points out, there absolutely are situations in which violence is justified to advance political objectives, with the Revolutionary War being just one example.

FPC’s caption in the post is so important that I am reproducing it below:

“We believe that natural rights are not granted by governments, a byproduct of majority consensus or majoritarian process, or mere privileges conferred by any government, group, or creation of man.”

(emphasis added)