Link: The dualism of transgenderism

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the-hidden-dualism-of-transgenderism

Dualism fails because it is, at present, unfalsifiable.
Then again, so too is consciousness. If you treat the ephemeral spirit of dualism as consciousness, the theories are practically indistinguishable.

Transsexualism (the surgery) treats the ephemeral impression as more valid than the anatomical reality, and judges one as ‘wrong’, to be immediately ‘fixed’ with genital butchering. There was a woman who wanted to be blind so badly her therapist, who should be struck off and imprisoned, helped her pour bleach into her eyes to manifest it.

I wish HBD covered more biology of virtue and the behavioural feedback loop.
Once a cheat, always a cheat has a firm basis in fact.

You may have seen the dramatic images of brains atrophied through substance abuse. A habit of lies, makes one, even neurobiologically, a liar. Aritotle writes that an act of infidelity may be overcome, but a habit of infidelity makes one a different person. So what does a habit of anger, or a habit of pornography do? These are profound insights into how our moral makeup depends on our own choices.

People must know that you can’t just say ‘Sorry’ and go back, your behaviours change your brain. Those who sin are not the same person, physically, and can never be blemish-free again.

I was reading de Balzac only yesterday and he said something to effect of “others will respect you for detesting people who have done detestable things.” This is aristocratic, part of noblesse oblige. It is a social requirement to shun and spurn and degrade the sinners as it is to praise and raise the saints. Noblefolk are only nice to the good.

There is no free try, contrary to the propaganda, experience is a bad thing. The sinners have no moral authority, let alone holding them above saints. The first time is a choice and the second time a habit.

Elsewhere Honore said Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact.”

Back then, equality meant meritocracy. France was doing well off it.

Link: You wanted it, you got it

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/if-that-it-what-you-want-ok-have-it-see.html

…The fact is, we need to be destroyed. And we have decided to do the job ourselves. And we are being allowed to do it.

*

Even after decades of self-inflicted decline, modern Man is too powerful – because we consistently abuse all the power we have, and every new power.

Supposing the world was still full of scientific geniuses, and that people were still as intelligent, educated and self-motivated as they used-to be? –  Supposing we still made major technical breakthroughs? – What would we use them for? – Supposing there were still great composers, writers, philosophers? – What kind of beliefs would they be inspiring in us? …

Ouch.

…And the whole process is concealed by our rooted cultural preference for dishonesty and delusion. Another choice with consequences.

ouch ow pain

Madness as Moral Metaphor

http://www.henrydampier.com/2015/04/unhappy-mad-soft-moderns/

…What Thomas Szasz uncovered was that mental illnesses are better understood as metaphors for moral illness than as conventional illnesses like cancer and appendicitis. As progressives change the moral structure of society, the quasi-scientific notions of what is healthy and what is ill must also change….

That link includes this;

Properly speaking, contends Szasz, insanity is not a disease with origins to be excavated, but a behavior with meanings to be decoded. Social existence is a rule-governed game-playing ritual in which the mad person bends the rules and exploits the loopholes. Since the mad person is engaged in social performances that obey certain expectations so as to defy others, the pertinent questions are not about the origins, but about the conventions, of insanity.

That’s a very nurture-based way of looking at it, the PC lot should be delighted. Alas, that allots them responsibility for their actions, and the refutes the rationale behind claiming mental illness – absolving personal responsibility, the way others used to do with sins.

This idea washes with what I’ve witnessed.

Back to HD;

…It’s easy to blame the birth control pill for your own sexual incontinence, but much harder to confess your own willful sins. The fat man is more likely to blame Nabisco for making Oreo creme cookies so delicious rather than to look into his own gluttony, sloth, and intemperance. …

We have children in the bodies of adults. All the rights, none of the responsibility. It’s called extended adolescence, and better thought of as a form of Peter Pan Syndrome. [women ‘suffer’ it too]

There is a lot of sweeping under the rug. Promiscuity is still a sign of psychopathy. Homosexuality is often accompanied with a low impulse control, a resultant inability to be monogamous and multiple fetishes, which grow worse and more extreme over time. Everyone knows by now the HIV and suicide rates among transsexuals.

We seem to ignore our own common law. The age of criminal responsibility is none at all. If they come up with a good excuse, like a child to a teacher, they can be let off. Naturally, they hide behind the medical model, and play victim. What else can they do, change? I blame the Nanny State for part of this. It infantilises adults for the sake of their health. The problem has multiple prongs.

In a biological sense, these people are either human, with responsibility for themselves, or inhuman, and undeserving of their rights accordingly. Dangerous line of thought? Perhaps. Tell that to the prefrontal cortex studies detailing the impulse control and rational decision making that living in a civilized society demands.

Vice’s Daisy May-Hudson: Britain’s homeless deserve smartphones

article here

For the record, I don’t have a smartphone. (I don’t need one yet).
This little bitch does have a smartphone.

“I am homeless, but I have a smart phone, like to dress well and I’m a slave to a nice glass of Rioja once in a while. People are less likely to give a beggar their spare change if they have a phone or a cigarette in their hand. In the same way, people resent me for having nice things and looking nice while I can’t afford a house. They think I’m getting being poor “wrong”, like there are a set of rules that I’m not following, and that I don’t deserve life’s little luxuries.

To those people I say: Fuck you.”

A short sharp correction is requiredDouble-barrel name? You’re not poor.