Is the Death Penalty Outdated?

That the death penalty is outdated is an absurd notion, in my opinion.  What exactly makes something outdated?  I would say that something becomes outdated when a superior alternative is available.  It bothers me when people use the term “outdated” in a sociological context because it is basically a way of saying “traditional” with a negative connotation (even though “traditional” is seemingly gaining a negative connotation of is own), while there are more accurate adjectives available.  What I am trying to say is that “outdated,” in a sociological context, is really nothing more than a buzzword designed to add a negative connotation to a traditional custom or behaviour.  Which, it seems, is basically a way of saying anything short of progressivism (or constant social change) is inherently a bad thing. 

Semantics aside, the debate over the death penalty is becoming heated in the United States with the recent execution of Troy Davis.  I am pro-death penalty.  In fact, I would prefer to see it expanded to crimes such as sexual abuse of children and drug trafficking.  To me, it seems a perfectly ethical, reasonable, and practical option.  But only if it were limited to cases with strong evidence.  My believing in its ethicality is based upon the fact that the victims should be favoured in a criminal justice system.  Murder victims die.  They were not allowed the opportunity to be incarcerated and possibly paroled.  They’re dead.  So, why should their killers be allowed the opportunity not to be dead?  In many cases, the victim was relatively innocent, whereas the killer was not.  So, basically, a system devoid of the death penalty values the life of the killer over the life of the relatively innocent victim.  To me, that does not seem ethical; it, in fact, seems downright unethical.  Hence my belief that the death penalty is ethical.  With prisons ludicrously overcrowded, the death penalty is also practical (I agree with Homer).  It wouldn’t necessarily free up a lot of space, but that is beside the point.

I believe that anyone who believes that the death penalty, or violence, is outdated or barbaric (or, in other words, they believe that humanity has reached a point where everyone can get along without resorting to violence, or something) is living in a delusional fantasy-land.  

ABORTION

Apparently, some time in the recent past, there was some debate about abortion in Canada.  I am wondering when this debate occurred.  Anyway, it seems to be a sensitive issue in Canada.  Abortion was legalized in Canada in 1988 (perhaps this was the debate I'm hearing about, which would mean it occurred before I was born), and it is funded by the government (excluding in New Brunswick).  Last year, during the G8 summit in Toronto, Stephen Harper said that Canada would not fund abortions in foreign nations.

Harper has since been insisting he doesn’t want to reopen the debate on abortion in Canada. But many have noted the contradiction between a foreign policy that rejects abortion for women in developing countries and Canadian laws that give women here access to abortions paid by government insurance.

I don't see any contradiction here.  By that logic, Canadian taxpayers would fund social services and infrastructure in developing countries, in addition to many other things.  Anyway, Harper's statement prompted this:

The Liberal Party, the main opposition to Harper’s Conservatives, has tried to make the most of the issue. Led by their struggling leader, Michael Ignatieff, it tried to pass a motion in parliament demanding that the government “refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States.” 

I love it when lefties use the term "right-wing" as if it were an insult.  Anyway, that motion failed because anti-abortion liberal MP's didn't vote (in Canada, MP's must vote along party lines, something I find stupid).

Anyway, my reason for bringing this up is that I wanted to write a post on abortion.  I would argue that any abortion committed after life begins is murder.  I am unsure whether there is scientific consensus on when life begins, but, I would argue that life begins at conception based on the fact that the when the sperm, which contains 23 chromosomes, and the ovum, which contains 23 chromosomes, are combined, you get the 46 chromosomes that constitute the individual.  However, I do have some problems with that reasoning, because that would mean that killing a zygote is murder, and a zygote (which is a cell), is not really a person.  And, while a zygote is a distinct organism, so is a deer (for example).  Personally, I have no moral issues with killing a deer.  So, if a zygote isn't a human, why should I have any moral issues with killing one?  To me, that is semantic, and a debate best left up to ethicists.  To avoid such ethical issues, it is better to simply say that life begins at conception, because it certainly doesn't begin by going through the birth canal (unless that is some sort of magic portal, which I don't think it is).    

An Appalling Case of Progressivism

This is precisely the reason I am a proponent of socially conservative values (h/t GayPatriot):

Officials in Basel [Switzerland] have agreed to rename the “sex box” after receiving some 3,000 letters of protest from parents angered by the controversial trove ofwooden penises and fabric vaginas set to be used in a new sex education programme for playschool and primary school kids. 

Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), responded to parent’s protests in an interview with SonntagsBlick. 

“It was no doubt stupid to call it a ’sex box’ – we will change that. But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents,“ he said. 

Many parents say they do not understand why sex education needs to be taught to children as young as four.

I can see the point of educating teens about sex, but four year olds?

Eymann said he understood that one line in the programme, “touching can be enjoyed heartily”, could be misconstrued, but insisted: “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me’. We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ’no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age." 

Eymann said he would prefer if sex education was taught to children at home but argued that education officials needed to respond to the realities of today. 

“We currently live in an oversexualised society. There is uncontrolled distribution of pornographic material that can reach young children. Some primary school children know the TV schedule until 2am. We would like to offer these children firm support, which is often not available in the family. The box is only an aid. I trust the teachers to approach the material with care.”

Yes, we do live in an oversexualized society.  However, making it further oversexualized is not the solution.  And, this is perhaps the worst part:

Some parents have called for their children to be exempted from sex education. Eymann says he is strictly against exemptions, although he is aware this will not make him many friends: 

“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has. The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend“, he said.

This is one of those things that would make me check the date if it weren't August (in case it were April 1st).  Still, I have a difficult time thinking any sane person would actually think this is the solution to anything.  While I am opposed to government intervention into the actions of people in private (as long as they are not causing harm to anyone), it is clear to me that children, especially children this young, are not rational, and cannot understand sex and what its significance is.  Sex is a natural thing, but, it has the capability of causing problems when it is not understood rationally.  I would prefer to live in a society where sex is not out in the open, where it is private.

In addition, it is totally unacceptable for parents not to be able to pull their children out of this program.

NOTE: I almost titled this post "Mental Porn for Pedophiles" but I decided not to.

Let's Be Reasonable

I would like to address a topic that I have been meaning to address, but have not done so yet.  And that topic is religion.  Like homosexuals, those lacking a religious belief are generally assumed to be politically left-of-centre.  And, also like homosexuals, there do exist those lacking a religious belief that are conservative.  There even exist conservative homosexuals who lack a religious belief (such as myself).

I consider myself agnostic, because I believe that we cannot know for certain whether or not a deity (or any supernatural entity) exists (unless it were proven that one does exist).  And, just because modern science doesn't prove the existence of some supernatural entity, that doesn't necessarily mean that it never will.

For all practical purposes, I suppose I am atheist, in that I would only accept a supernatural entity/diety if it were scientifically proven.  In accordance with the principal of Occam's razor, that dictates that the hypothesis that depends upon the fewest assumptions is generally favorable, I do not believe that anything supernatural exists.  Most things can be better explained with science.  And, for that which cannot be explained with science, new scientific discoveries have elucidated what has previously been unexplained.  Ergo, it stands to reason that new scientific discoveries may elucidate what currently cannot be explained with science.  Having said that, science is not absolute.  Existence is mysterious, and, in my opinion, we humans cannot be absolutely certain that things are how they seem, regardless of how likely or unlikely they are not how they seem.

I do not view those with religious beliefs as inherently inferior to myself because they are religious, just as I would hope that religious people would not view me as inferior because I am not.  I have a great deal of respect for religion, as I believe it plays a significant role in society.  In this comment I made to a post at GayPatriot, I explained my views on this subject.  So, instead of writing something new, I will just recreate most of that comment because it does the job.

I have a large amount of respect for religion, the role it plays in society, and the people who commit to it. I doubt I would ever be able to understand faith, but I can respect how important it is (as long as I still have freedom to be secular). It provides a valuable structure and a means by which to keep people grounded and restrained, as well as a means by which to keep society moral. As long as the religion is a benevolent force (unlike Islam), I condemn those who mock it. They should have the freedom to mock it, but I cannot understand or appreciate their intolerant motivation.

As a social (or cultural) conservative who favors limited government, I recognize religion as a valuable means by which to propagate a moral structure in society and it does so much better than government ever could. In other words, it keeps people and society “clean” and modest.
I do not have respect for those who, whether conservative or liberal, who [sic] fail to respect another point of view, so long as that point of view allows for dissenting point of views [sic].

While many atheists/agnostics claim to be rational, I will say that many of them have an irrational opposition to religion.  Because I was raised secularly, I have no understanding of the nature of religious faith, so, for that reason, I cannot condemn it as "irrational."  The primary function of most secular organizations seems to be to pass judgement on others, which I find ironic.

As for the nature of the relationship between religious people and secular people, I would hope there could be a mutual respect.  Not all atheists are religion-hating liberals.  Public expressions of faith do not threaten me, just as they shouldn't threaten anyone else.  In addition, religion is not necessary for morality.  Most people are able to tell the difference between right and wrong.  That doesn't mean those people necessarily avoid doing wrong, but many do.  That also doesn't mean that secular people are as moral as religious people; the opposite is probably true.  

There are plenty of secular conservatives.  And, something that also applies to gay conservatives is that much of the incredulity of this apparent oxymoron is based upon misconceptions.  The misconception of the average conservative as being a religious zealot that means to dictate what people are allowed to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or something.  While there are those on the right who may fit that description, there are many who do not.  I mentioned this issue in a previous post, in which I also present an argument (someone else's) for cultural conservatism.

Overreaction of Titanic Proportions over Imaginary Homophobia

I just saw this on the news:

Professor and former Surrey-North federal Liberal candidate Shinder Purewal sparked a Twitter storm on Thursday by tweeting that he finds the Vancouver Pride Parade “vulgar.”

He posted on Twitter that “Vancouver’s so-called ‘Pride Parade’ should be banned. It is vulgar ... to say the least!”

The Kwantlen University professor and former citizenship judge received a flood of responses, all disagreeing with him.

In a telephone interview Thursday about his tweet, Purewal said: “If I can’t take my family to a place because of open sexuality, my opinion is that it’s simply vulgar.

...

 Vancouver Pride Society president Ken Coolin said people are entitled to their own opinion, but called Purewal’s comments “unfortunate.

He said Purewal “should understand how comments like this can turn into challenges for the community.

“It’s sad he chose to make this comment; it is going to be interpreted as homophobic by many in our community, even though he doesn’t see it that way.”

I question whether he has sat and watched the parade the whole way through, because there are families, brothers, sisters, moms and dads, who go together to support each other,” said Coolin.

Emphasis added.
Let me just say that I completely agree with Professor Purewal, and his comments are in no way homophic.  The parade is vulgar.  For photos that showcase the parade's vulgarity, click here, here, here, here, and here (warning: that last image contains nudity).  A simple Google search will reveal many, many more obscene photos.  Is that really an event you want to bring your family to?

The following tweets showcase the irrationality of some people (sorry for the atrocious formatting):

 Top @ShinderPurewal tweets:

jarrahpenguin Jarrah Hodge
@ShinderPurewal's #vanpride2011 "clarification" didn't help. You can't say you support #lgbt rights but find the sexuality "vulgar"
KSAcouncil Kwantlen KSA
Kwantlen prof @shinderpurewal views on #vanpride2011 dont reflect the @KSACouncil
anotherPurewal Tavleen Purewal
Yup, why doesn't everyone jump on the hate @ShinderPurewal bandwagon! His opinion, "something I wouldn't want my children to see"

@ShinderPurewal life long learner? How is that possible when your mind is closed so tight?

tuxforpm TuxForPM
@ShinderPurewal Sure, why not? Lets ban every way people have to express themselves because it offends our intransigent morality #cdnpoli
tdhross Jonathan Ross
@shinderpurewal @liberal_party As a proud Liberal, this ex-candidate's disgusting views on #vanpride2011 does not represent our party. Shame

Emphasis added.

In case someone reads this that isn't familiar with me, I am gay.  Seriously, some of these comments leave me absolutely astonished and speechless.  I don't even know what to say.  People are entitled to their views obviously (this isn't the Netherlands, for God's sake), but I have never seen such overreaction.  Wow.  That is really all I can say.  I no longer have any hope for the "gay community."  It is clear that they are self-absorbed and intransigent, and, since they are a minority, they have the responsibility to listen to the majority (within reasonableness, of course).  

See also: this post.

UPDATE: Please also note that Professor Purewal also said this:

“That does not mean that I don’t support same-sex marriage, which I do and voted for, or that I don’t support people of different sexual orientation, but for it to be in public is vulgar.”

UPDATE: I edited this post a bit.

The Horrors of Gay Pride

I am very critical of gay pride.  The concept of being proud of such a thing is absurd.  The actual parades showcase sexuality and immorality.  This morning, I watched an interview on the news with an organizer of a gay pride event in Vancouver, who said that people would have the opportunity to walk down a certain street naked during the gay pride events.  Is that how the gay community wants to represent itself?  Personally, as a homosexual person, the gay pride parade and its focus on sex offends me. 

I am neither proud of nor ashamed of my sexuality.  I would hope that it would be considered the least interesting thing about me.  But the gay pride events draw attention to sexuality, and those who participate seem to make their sexuality a significant aspect of themselves. 

I am an opponent of the concept of the gay community as well as gay pride.  Any other gay people who share my views, please speak up!  

Gender Bending Diversity Training

Gender Spectrum Diversity Training sounds hideously politically correct on its own, but that was the name of a program targeted towards kindergarten students:

Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, CA has joined the chorus of those wishing to mainstream 'gender-bending' by enacting a program this week that, according to a press release, tells kindergarteners 'there are more than two genders.'

 The kindergarten through fifth grade school hosted a 2-day program for students titled, 'Gender Spectrum Diversity Training,' in which single-sex Hawaiian geckos and transgender clownfish were brought in to teach children that 'there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls,' according to Redwood Heights principal Sara Stone. Students received gender diversity training as they learned about 'boy snakes that act 'girly'.' 

This is only the latest example of what seems to be a New-Age, gender-bending agenda pushed into the mainstream media by those who refuse to accept the traditional sex differences between men and women. A couple in Toronto, Canada has sparked outrage because they refuse to assign a specific gender to their infant 'Storm,' preferring instead to believe 'a child's sex should not determine his or her place in the world.

Firstly, I highly doubt kindergarten students understand what gender is.  If little boys act like girls sometimes, they are not self-conscious about it.  They don't understand that what they are doing is "gender bending."  Secondly, lizards and fish are not comparable to humans.  There are numerous species that exhibit transsexuality (called hermaphroditism in biology).  For hermaphroditic species, either having both male and female sexual organs simultaneously or changing sexual organs at some point is common, if not universal.  Clownfish, unlike humans, are hermaphroditic (they are born male, but may become female).  Obviously, kindergarten students would not be able understand that, but deriving a "lesson" from a flawed comparison seems unethical to me.  That is not to mention everything else that is horribly wrong with indoctrinating children with this politically correct "gender bending" agenda.  

In human culture, there is a reason for the social construct of gender: that males and females are fundamentally different and have fundamentally different roles.  I think women should have the same rights as men, but that does not mean that women are the same as men.  If small children have problems with their gender, then they should be allowed to deal with that on their own.  This is yet another example of the illusion that life is easy and everyone loves everyone that children are perpetually exposed to in schools.  Life is hard, and it is even harder when you think it is easy.  Instead of indoctrinating children with vile ideals and exposing them to sex at a disgustingly early age (see also, this post), schools should focus on teaching children things like science and math and let them establish their own ideals through their own experiences.  

Society is gradually becoming more accepting of deviance of gender roles.  What is wrong with the expectation that men act like men and women act like women?  In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.  School is a joke and parents are becoming so over-protective that their children are not mature enough that they can't function in the real world because they never had the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.  The world is gradually becoming an abhorrently progressive dystopia.  The traditional family unit is important to the health of society.  I will go into that in more detail in a subsequent post.  For now, I will conclude that, given that premise, traditional gender roles are also important for the health of society.  Exposing children to androgyny cannot be good.  

I also wanted to say something about this, the Toronto couple that is raising a "genderless" child that was mentioned in that article I linked to.  

A Toronto couple is taking their beliefs about parenting and gender stereotypes to new heights: They refuse to tell people the gender of 4-month-old Storm, reports the Toronto Star. Even the kid's grandparents are in the dark. “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be?!”

I do believe that parents (not schools) should be able to raise their children how they want to, but this seems almost criminal.  This has to be some form of child abuse.

Militant progressivism has reached a new low.

Think of the Children

I am hearing a lot about sexual abuse of children.  If there is something that makes me question whether I am a compassionate person, it is this.  I can think of few things that are greater injustices.  The people who commit these atrocities do not deserve to live.  They effectively took the life of their victims.  I am not sure if there is a difference between compassion and a sense of justice.  Compassion is an irrational thing.  I do not believe, however, that a sense of justice is.  I cannot be certain of whether or not what I am feeling is compassion.  All I know is that the sexual abuse of children makes me sick.  Like so many other things, it is a terrible injustice.  In a truly just society, the evil people who commit sexual abuse of children would be put to death for destroying the life of an innocent child. 

Society must give every child the opportunity to be successful.  Our society is disintegrating into one that caters to the often-immoral desires of adults, rather than one that caters to the healthy upbringing of a child.  It is not society’s responsibility to raise children, but, in my opinion, it is society’s responsibility to ensure that children are given equal opportunity to do what they want with their lives.  This opportunity can manifest itself in various ways.  I believe that the best thing that society can do to ensure that children are given an equal opportunity is to allow them to be free of what can take that opportunity away.  An observation that I have made is that many words seems to have an alternate meaning that is somehow sexual in nature.  I hypothesize that the disintegration of the English lexicon is evidence of the disintegration of society.  This is just one example of the increased sexualization of society.  I would hate to live in the past, but I believe we can, and should, learn lessons from it.  Society should move towards a moral existence where children may have the opportunities they should have; where their innocence cannot be corrupted.  I do not think, however, that the government should enforce this on the populace.  It is the responsibility of individuals to uphold this.  I am uncertain of how to approach this; there seems to be a fine line between enroaching on liberty and keeping society moral.  All I can be certain of is that society is becoming an increasingly hostile place in which to raise children.  I think, some way or another, that sexuality needs to leave the view of impressionable children and it needs to go behind doors.  The law must be enforced, but total reliance upon the government is the wrong way to go, in my opinion.  To me, this is a very difficult issue, and I can’t put forward a real solution.  I just know that something should be done, and society as a whole should focus on the children. 

And, to be clear, the information about me is not set in stone.  I am a young person, and I am malleable.  I apologize for this wavering post.  I am not sure what exactly I want to say, but I think that this issue is important and that the more people who discuss it, the better.  And, part of the reason I read blogs, and part of the reason I started one, is to learn more about myself and to learn more in general.  Writing this post is a way for me to try to judge what I think is ultimately important and to try to figure out what kind of person I am and what kind of person I want to be.  I do realize that this post is deceptively self-serving.  But that does not necissarily alter the unfortunate truth.  The reason I am saying this is that I want to be transparent and acknowledge my ulterior motives in writing this.  This blog is an experiment.  That is all it is.  But, if there is some way I can do some good, however small or large it may be, is a great bonus.  I hope this post may, somehow, do some form of good to someone other than myself.  At the very least, I hope it might cause anyone who might happen to read it to think about this issue.