Dictionarily Correct

I had to write a second thought this month because this conversation is essential to get straight because the fallacy is creating a lot of unnecessary confusion while America is being attacked. Dictionaries were created to eliminate this type of confusion that is pervading America today. It is the reason gay people should not be allowed to get a marriage certificate without some type of redefining of the purpose of the certificate. I’m referring to terrorism and the unnecessary confusion about religion. Terrorism has a definition just like religion. And when an attack occurs, we can apply that definition accordingly based upon what was agreed in our dictionaries for the purposes of communicating. However, whether you call the South Carolina shooting a terrorist attack or the San Bernadine shooting a terrorist attack is irrelevant. The South Carolina terrorist group was a one man lunatic that has been ended. I don’t care if he claims to be Christian or Muslim or a KKK member. He needed to be stopped because of his principles. However, the San Bernadine terrorist group is still alive and growing because it was not just two lunatics. The principles of these two lunatics are still very much alive in a larger group of lunatics. And the moment your principles condone the killing of another group of innocent people it does not matter whether it is defined a religion or not. The Charleston shooter cannot proclaim a holy war because neither Christianity nor KKK preaches these principles. However, that larger group of lunatics that I was talking about has proclaimed a holy war in the past because its principles specifically preach the killing of nonbelievers. And that is the difference.

And if you stop reading this discussion and proclaim to know where I’m coming from without hearing me out, then you are also part of the problem.

I’ve been saying it all along that the biggest problem with some people in America is their inability to distinguish, define, and classify situations (the devaluing of Math and Science in schools argument again…). It’s seems that the problem with some people is that they search for one similarity and if they find it they immediately assume that the two situations are the same. In order for two things to be the same, all of the characteristics must be similar.  A quick Geometry lesson on SAS, SSS, and ASA for determining congruence between triangles might help solve this problem, but most of these people have already failed this class or “passed” it according to today’s standards. Besides, a law cannot be written to define every possible situation that will occur in life, but these people believe it can. People must be able to think in order to classify situations as being within the law or not. Secondly, these same people would rather spend time arguing about the classification of something rather than fixing the problem. I don’t care if any of the shooters are classified as terrorists. The only thing that matters is stopping any and all groups who have these types of principles. The moment a group of people use Christianity or the KKK as a method to recruit people with the intention to do harm that group needs to be stopped, not the religion. We don’t stop the religion because the religion was not founded on the bad principles that sprang up from the cult. The difference with radical Islam is that the original “organization/religion” specifically preaches these principles. And this is the identifying characteristic that tells you the religion itself needs to be stopped. Religion has nothing to do with establishing an organization with illegal principles. If a group of people develop a denomination of Christianity based on illegal principles, then yes that organization needs to be stopped and religion has nothing to do with it.

Let me try to explain similar situations in which one the religion is to blame and the other the religion is not to blame. If I kill somebody because my Christian church persuaded me to commit the act, then I’m a killer. You may call me a terrorist, but it is irrelevant. And the fact that I’m Christian has nothing to do with it because Christianity does not preach this. However, my church has something to do with it and needs to be stopped. Not because it’s a Christian church or a religion, but because it is a church preaching bad principles. If I kill somebody because my Muslim church persuaded me to commit the act, then I’m a killer. You may call me a terrorist, but it is irrelevant. And the fact that I’m Muslim has nothing to do with it because the Muslim religion does not preach this. And the fact that I’m a radical Islamist has nothing to do with it because the Islamic religion… Oh, wait, yes, the religion does preach this. My radical Islamic church has something to do with it and needs to be stopped. Not because it’s a Muslim church or a religion, but because it is a church preaching bad principles.

Being a bad person or group of people does not mean that the organizations that they say they are associated with are bad, but being a bad organization with bad principles does. Do you really think the Charleston shooter was a Christian? Saying I’m Christian and being Christian are two different things. My actions dictate the truth. Jesus warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and even told us that we will know the tree by the fruit that it bears. It is time America returns to our founding philosophy of blaming what deserves blame. Yes, a genetically modified plant could be dangerous just like a natural plant. But it is possible that some genetically modified plants are perfectly safe; yet, in this instance liberals have zero tolerance without ever looking at all the facts or judging each genetically modified plant separately. Isn’t it ironic how those who cast stones towards bigots are the most ferocious bigots?

Now is a good time to illustrate the biggest cause of arguments between the two political parties. At times I see Republicans making the same pigheaded mistakes of donkeys because some people can’t distinguish a “red flag/stereotype” from the main purpose or a direct cause. I believe it is because some people don’t realize that in one instance an observation can be a “red flag”, while the same observation can be the purpose or direct relationship in another instance. For example, women have more “red flags” than everyone (haha) even though they are always screaming about bigot rednecks. That was kind of a joke and not the example, but I do want to focus on “red flags” from the male perspective. Let us take a single mother with two or three children for the example. One man may not want to be with a crabby, bothersome wife and will use the fact that the woman is a single mother with many children to assume she would make a bad wife. In this instance, the man is stereotyping because we know nothing about why the woman is single. This scenario is nothing more than a relationship (a stereotype) that could very well be true. Now take me on the other hand, I don’t want children. And if I did, I certainly wouldn’t want a premade family to take care of and support. So for me, this same instance becomes the actual cause or direct relationship as to why I don’t want this woman for a wife. I am not stereotyping, I am exercising choice using what I do not want as the main purpose for my decision. All of the problems in America are based off of some people’s inability to distinguish the differences I just described. Therefore, associations, relationships, and one event in a series of events are being erroneously used as proof, which leads to regulations and laws that cause problems. Or not being able to distinguish the main purpose of the argument/problem leads to violent, unnecessary disagreement.

Now is an even better time to point out something that the liberal side of Democrats always does. They pick a bad characteristic that they themselves exhibit and then try to transfer their own blame to the Republicans by finding a similar characteristic in something the Republicans have done. I believe I’ve heard Psychologist label this type of behavior before, but I cannot remember. I have many liberal friends who do the exact same thing to me, we call them hypocrites. They complain about something in us that we really don’t do, but they do all of the time to a much deeper extent. They then go around complaining about us, when in reality they are much bigger culprits of the complaint. Once again, it is due to the inability to distinguish situations that may have some similar characteristics but are really very different from each other. For example, when the two political parties were arguing over the debt limit I felt that the Democrats accused the Republicans of their own behavior. Democrats were acting as if Republicans were throwing a temper tantrum like little kids. But it would be the same thing as a parent telling their child, “no we can’t put more money on the credit card, so stop crying and stomping your feet.” And then when the parent refuses to put more money on the credit card the child tells the parent “stop throwing a temper tantrum and acting like a little baby because I am telling grandma to get me another toy with your credit,” all the while stomping their little feet and crying. Now you tell me who is throwing the temper tantrum.

[Now would be the best time to answer my question, if both sides are unwilling to yield, how can only one side be blamed? But that is not the purpose of this discussion]

The point is that some of our politicians can’t distinguish between a bad person or group of people and a bad religion or collection of principles. Personally, I don’t care what words we choose to use when discussing this problem. “Americanly”, the words do not matter and are irrelevant; what matters is the conveyance of understanding. And we all need to understand that the problem needs to be solved.

You Are only Allowed to be Anti American

This really is not what I wanted to talk about this month, but I couldn’t let the hypocrisy go by unnoticed. It is the most important flaw in liberal thinking that is killing America (notice I focus on “liberals”, not the Democrat party). It is associated with one-way stereotypes, but let’s face it, everything is associated with stereotypes because they are important because they are significant statistics. But the main point really has nothing to do with stereotypes, only the lack of consistency with social media and the new laws that seem to be accompanying them. My unrest began with an argument I read in relation to allowing Syrian refugees into our Country. The issue of refugees is not my concern or the reason for writing any of this. I am not arguing for or against this issue. I simply want to point out the hypocrisy in logic that is unjustly being supported by our courts.

The article was based off of statistics (stereotypes again) regarding deaths from terrorist attacks in America. According to the article there were 293 furniture related fatalities in 2011, which was far greater than deaths from terrorists in America, which I find to be an interesting figure since there were about 3,000 immediate deaths during the 9/11 attack and people are still dying from the after math of health conditions created during rescue and cleanup. Anyway, the article based its argument for allowing refugees into our Country on the statistic that you are far more likely to get killed by furniture than a terrorist. So according to the numbers, Syrian refugees should be allowed to enter the US because we should not be worried about terrorists because they are safer than furniture.  I immediately took it upon myself to look up the number of mass shooting fatalities in 2011. According to Mother Jones, a popular anti-gun media organization, there were 19 fatalities from mass shootings in 2011. And from several other sources, it seems that there were 17 fatalities of US citizens from terrorism in 2011. I must note that I believe the terrorist deaths were outside the US, so I don’t know that it would be correct to relate the numbers. But I do believe it would be correct to say that the number of terrorist attacks and mass shootings (especially since some of the mass shootings are terrorist attacks) are similar. So it would seem that the same people who argue that furniture is more dangerous than terrorists in America so we should not be worried about them immediately change this logic when data shows that mass shootings are far less likely than furniture attacks also. The numbers are very similar between terrorist attacks and mass shootings, yet the explanations of each are the exact opposite. We have a mass shooting crisis according to these people, but using the same numbers we have nothing to fear from terrorists because terrorism essentially does not exist. Remember, I’m not here to tell you what to think about the numbers. I’m just here to tell you what stupid is…

Honestly, I’m speechless at the bold admittance of stupidity and hypocrisy, but even more humbled by the fact that I seem to be the only person willing to literally stand and focus concerted effort against this type of immorality and open ignorance offered as justification. I cannot tell you what is moral, but I can tell you that contradicting agreed upon beliefs is immoral. It is also a form of enslavement and forced control because people enforce laws based on what they want, not what is correct. The biggest difference between America now and some time ago is that people with authority can get away with such poor justifications that lack sense. The politicians have been crooked since the beginning of society; the only difference is that in America they used to have to at least put some effort into hiding their crap. And that is the purpose of this website.

It seems like the only thing you are allowed to oppose and use stereotypes to attack are American ideals. When politicians do this it is supposed to be called treason, but I see it everyday now. Stereotypes can explain why things might exist, but they can never justify why everyone should be forced into something. In fact, that is why you don’t make laws based on stereotypes because you will without a doubt affect innocent people. Disproportionate statistics are used to make laws, but if you offer a disproportionate statistic to explain why a disproportionate observation is noted therefore no laws should be made you are called racist. As long as you influence people negatively regarding philosophies written in our Constitution you will be left alone, but if you influence people to follow what we have agreed upon you are told that the Constitution doesn’t allow you to influence people and that you are racist. I’m racist even though every new law we have today gives someone something special for being born a certain way. The idiocy in today’s society is making laws based on stereotypes that will only help a small percentage of the people, while it hurts the majority of the innocent people. And then saying if you do the same thing to help the majority of people it’s not fair because a small percentage of innocent people will be hurt is a contradiction and stupid. It is stupid to use stereotypes at all to make a law, but really dumb to only do it when you make laws that bring the majority of the community down. If you are going to make laws based on stereotypes, you should at least make it so that the majority of people are helped. However, as an American I believe we should only make laws that create a common good for all, such as roads for infrastructure and no stealing for community safety and the idea of free will. And let me illustrate something that is not a law or injustice, but just a good decision making process. If it is known that 30% of blood transfusions from a certain hospital infect people with disease, then it is ok to refuse a blood transfusion from that hospital. I am not persecuting the hospital based on stereotypes, I am simply exercising choice. It is not my responsibility to do anything for this hospital or accept blood transfusions to prove I’m not racist. If it is impossible to identify the good from the bad transfusions, I would be an idiot to take one from a hospital that is known to have a 30% infection rate, especially if I don’t need the transfusion or there exists other hospitals with 1% or even 0% rates.  I do not have to solve the hospitals problems to be a fair person and I’m not bullying the hospital for stating a fact that supports my choice not to go to the hospital. So do not confuse choices with laws when a community makes a decision. Just because you don’t like a decision does not mean it is an unjust law against your religion.

[Now would be a good time to explain the difference between a law and a choice/decision and people’s confusion that laws are supposed to solve their problems or promote their preferences, but I don’t want to lose the focus of the article]

The reason why you do not allow someone to be fired because they are gay is because majority voting does not dictate right and wrong. Remember, America did not become great because of democracy; it became great because of a democratic Republic with smart leaders following morals. And this is what we’ve lost through our bogus courts. The logic that is being used to fire people in America now, is the same logic that was used to fire gay people 50 years ago. Prestige could hurt the company business and popular opinion in those days did not like homosexuals, so businesses felt they could fire someone for being gay. People protested this, but the original movement back then was based on facts, definitions, and agreements trumping money and popularity. Courts found it illegal to fire someone solely based on preference. The only reason to fire someone is if it could be proven he/she had done a poor job based on the agreements of the hiring contract. The idea was to end stereotypical injustices regardless of the power of money. With this type of societal mindset, unions and tenure would become irrelevant. However, in today’s reign of “supreme law”; a person’s beliefs or preferences can now be used to fire them if it can be proven to cause financial damage. People are now being fired for publicized “mini-captions” regarding their statements, opinions, and preferences and nothing is being done to stop it. If you had specifically signed a contract based on those preferences or opinions then it would be a different story, but this is not the case. The same people that protested to stop this type of injustice against gays support it today because they don’t like the people and preferences that are currently being fired. Now, they say that the businesses have the right to fire a person if their image is damaged and possible financial gains could be lost. If this is the case, then the fact that 95% of people are not homosexual and a large majority of these people are Christians would give cause to fire someone because they are gay so as to not lose so much business, which used to be the argument in “evil Jim Crow era”. People who want to live by popularity voting or the power of money are creating a situation to negate the liberties so many have fought to gain in America over the years. But now, they want it because it is in their favor. However, this is the type of immorality that will cycle around to bite you in the butt. You don’t want those 95% white, rednecks to wake up with that kind of power again, or do you?

[I could begin a conversation here about the statement, “If you had specifically signed a contract based on those preferences or opinions then it would be a different story” and how the irony is that this is the only type of firing situation that is being protested in society today. In other words, people who should be fired because of contractual agreements about preference and opinion that were not true are being defended, while those who broke no agreements and should not be fired are applauded. This indicates that the only people being supported and defended are the ones who actual do wrong, which supports my statement that we are only allowed to be “anti-American” but I don’t want to get off on another topic]

The result of all of this is that the media, backed by the government, is now telling me how my child will be influenced. Only certain people and ideas are allowed to be spoken publicly without repercussion (sounds like the early 1900’s, except back then at least the censorship made sense). Only certain philosophies and “character counts” are allowed to be taught in my local school [which this is the topic I wanted to discuss this month]. If I spank my child and teach him/her respect for God and the feelings of others, I’m called a lunatic. And the same people calling me a lunatic say it’s ok to kill a baby in the womb if you don’t want the responsibility. They also say that God doesn’t solve mass shootings. Yet, when the Christian faith was allowed in our schools things seemed to be a whole lot safer than with all the new gun laws these “sane” people have brought. Does this sound like America to you?

And this is all caused because the children of the people who worked hard and made something great are now inheriting the fruits of the American dream. However, having lived privileged lives they have no understanding of how that fortune came to be. Why do I say this? Because there are two paths to becoming liberal minded, being lazy and doing drugs while wanting what others have or growing up rich. Many rich kids are jaded and think that money really does grow on trees. I will give them credit in that they do have big hearts and want people to experience what they think is reality. But chances are, when I meet a liberal thinker they are typically driving around in a nice truck that they didn’t really do any work to get. And this is what plants the liberal seed in their mind. Along with the fact that every child wants to rebel against what their parents preach. If you look at every major media source of influence, the message being promoted today is much different than 60 years ago. I say it is because the children are taking over for the people who worked to build those successes. And the children are changing the influence that once used to come from people who knew what it took to be successful. Not only successful as a person, but a community of people. Look at every movie and TV show from your childhood and compare it with what your children are watching before you disagree with me.

This article is not to prove anything regarding guns or terrorists. It is only to show the hypocrisy of liberal arguments. It is to show that there is no logic in what is trying to be forced on America by a minority of people and the media. Not all rich people are immoral, but the ones who are will surely love and seek to promote this type of mindset from the lower class. Illogical philosophies create dysfunctional systems, exploitations, unwanted results, poor conditions, and people who can do whatever they want. This creates a perfect society for any evil leader looking to make more easy money.

So this is what I’ve learned from liberal logic: “We shouldn’t be worried about terrorists because furniture has killed more people in America in 2011, but we do need to control more people who follow the law because several mass murderers also killed a lot less people than furniture in 2011 and those murderers who were mass shooters need to be called terrorists so we should be worried about terrorists.” The same people saying there is nothing to fear from terrorist when they give a speech about Syrian refugees also say that terrorist activities are at an all-time high when they give a speech about how George Bush created ISIS and is to blame for all our “terror” problems that disappear only when they are speaking about the Islamic religion. And I’m here to call you a piece of crap if you say the exact opposite thing depending on which opinion you want to force on me. This is why I’ve preached the importance of Math and Science in our schools. This is the exact reason why I say that the lack of accountability in our current educational system is ruining our Country. No logical thinker could ever accept these types of justifications. And if we let our children pass class based on these types of justifications they will begin to believe that the illogical is true. Just because we are American does not mean we are too good to work at a fast food restaurant. It just means that we have to earn it by not being able to think critically and solve problems with logical truths and facts. However, we must still be able to add and subtract.

What I don’t understand is that there are many people who agree with me, many more people who agree with my general idea than disagree with it. Yet, the only time they speak up and do anything is to quiet me down because they don’t want trouble…