The Rule of Law is a fundamental idea in governing. It concerns itself with the set of rules, codes and laws that a group adheres to uniformly i.e all members of this group adhere to it. However all rules of law are universal, or in other words all rules of law are not Christian in that they believe that there is one law for all of man. As Atavisionary describes, the ancestral heritage of this egalitarian view of life comes from Martin Luther during the age of the Reformation.
To fully understand conflict in civilizations it is necessary to understand how conflict occurs between two groups. When two or more groups exist in close spatial proximity to each other, a number of situations arise. Conflict over resources is bound to ensue and this raises important questions.
It occurs to me that the word Rationalist has been usurped by grown men and women with the intellectual rigor of an easily aroused adolescent teenager. Millennials in particular tout “Rationalism” as some sort of morally superior ideology which values Science™ as the ultimate good.
I found this post about Dmitry K Belyaev’s work quite fascinating and wanted to elaborate on the consequences of it. Belyaev, was a Soviet era Russian geniticist and victim of Lysenkoism,  losing his job as head of the Department of Fur Animal Breeding at the Central Research Laboratory of Fur Breeding in Moscow in 1948. Belyaev continued his work under the guise of studying animal physiology and his experiment which has lasted 40+ number of years has some interesting consequences.
The issue of female foeticide is a prevalent one in India which revolves around the relative benefits to having a boy over a girl. Sri Abhinav Agarwal has extensively covered the role of the Ford Foundation in aiding this destructive phenomenon in Hindu society.
At it’s core the idea that one may lump a number of people into a group based on certain shared characteristics smacks of what the left would denounce as “fascism”. Of course leftists frequently label their out-group whatever gets them a political advantage (“islamophobe”, “homophobe”, “transphobe”), and of course fascism does not exist.
This aside, let us discuss the idea of what a stereotype is and what benefits one potentially gains from the belief in stereotypes.
Stereotypes are certain simplified ideas or beliefs held by people about a group of individuals.
Think of meeting a new person and observing certain behaviour traits in them. Stereotyping allows us to give labels to these traits and then put them in a category which aptly describes who they are at a macro level. It allows us to simplify our approach in interacting with the individual. Think of it as simple clustering. Our brains define certain metrics specific to how we perceive human interaction and then automatically cluster new individuals according to our metric. Therefore, stereotyping is a simplified statistical model.
This is not to say that the metrics must be static, nor does it mean that an individual with a particular stereotype remains that way forever. Both the metric and the individuals evolve with experience, and character traits are refined in our brain. There is a trade-off when considering the number of useful traits. When you consider features which describe a person, (similar to machine learning) only a subset of all the total possible features are useful. If we take too many or too little we risk over-fitting or under-fitting our individual to our model. Or rather in this case, our clusters are either too small (large number of features, hyper-refined set of metrics) which automatically makes them worthless; or too large (small number of features, too nebulous for any pragmatic use) which make them even more worthless.
So what is the real benefit to stereotyping?
Stereotyping prevents costly errors while compromising on marginal benefits – otherwise they wouldn’t exist to begin with.
Rationally it makes no sense to stereotype. One may be “scientific” and say that since no fundamental law governs any subset of behaviours, there can be no certainty that the (n+1)th individual will behave similar to the earlier n individuals in the cluster. But then we have empiricism on our side, as well as Bayesian inference.
Stereotypes are usually rooted in intuition. A rationalist would discard this gut feeling since it does not conform to the scientific method. However, intuition is an evolutionary trait developed by humans for survival. Man is an animal at the end of the day, and requires a healthy amount of rational thought and emotion to function in society. Intuition is designed to be quick, aiding the decision between flight or fight in response to external stimuli.
Leftists will argue that stereotyping is inherently bigoted, and that no one should be labeled a certain way because of the way they dress, the colour of their skin or the religion they profess. This is utter nonsense. It suffices to say that given that intuition is a survival technique, “bigotry” is at it’s core a survival technique.
Stereotypes are good. Embrace them.
I find that a number of people seem to believe there can be a meaningful definition of equality. I find this surprising, since the only valid form of equality I find conceivable (at least theoretically) is in this really nice story by Kurt Vonnegut. If it scares you it should, that’s what equality looks like.
Let us critically dissect this idea
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities
Careful reasoning allows us to conclude that status and opportunities are functions of random variables. I find difficulty in even admitting that status should be a criteria since status is again not something that can be defined in any meaningful way. There is no way to decide that two people can be equal if two of the three criteria are random to begin with. Fun fact, in a continuous random distribution the chance of the value you draw from it being equal to the value you had in mind, is 0.
This being the case it is difficult to imagine an egalitarian utopia. But what of approximate equality. Surely there is something as approximate equality. I’m sure one can define a form of approximate equality but is that really desirable?
The story I’ve linked to fully appreciates the consequences of living in a society where everyone is approximately equal. It’s a nightmare. Consider for a moment that if you show a skill set which even slightly puts you at an advantage (such as the ability to compute an arithmetic sum faster than your peers), this automatically makes you unequal. Outrageous! How dare your biology allow you to do such a thing. You have unfairly disadvantaged others and the only way to rectify this breach of the social contract is to ensure you can never use your ability again.
The absurdity of restricting someone’s ability to do math a little quicker is simply to highlight an underlying notion. Too many things cannot be controlled for, and therefore human society will always be unequal. Using force is the only way to make humans equal. Who will wield this force, and what guarantees that it will be wielded for the right purposes?
One may ask if this arrangement of inherent inequality is good or bad. I fail to see this as a moral question. Nature is cruel, she cares not for your feelings or for your morality. It is what it is.
“Women have bodily autonomy!” scream leftists without a second thought to what bodily autonomy would entail. It would even seem some sane thinking people have absorbed the meme.
What bodily autonomy means is very simple -the right to choose what to do with one’s own body. But the problem of course with this, is that people are bags of flesh littered with emotions. They are not driven by logic but by fear, longing and their more primal urges. This leads them to make stupid choices. Aside from conciously choosing to be a feminist, one of these stupid choices results in what leftists would have destroyed: Life
Often times the topic of what life is comes up. Leftists love to debate whether or not a foetus is “really” alive. There is no scientific way to discuss what is “alive”, and you can establish this for yourself by reading some Bruce Charlton here. Thus I offer a simple solution to the topic of whether a foetus is alive.
If I am alive due to the sustenance I draw from my environment, a foetus is alive similarly.
Now that we have established that there is some truth to the idea that a foetus is alive, the topic of abortion shifts from – should women have bodily autonomy to
Should women have the right to murder their own young
Pro-abortionists are not truly trying to help women. They degrade them further by introducing the seemingly innocuous idea of free love, the idea that there are no consequences to casual sex. Of course we have evolved into monogamy but leftists only like science when it comes to bashing the religious, they do not actually engage in the scientific method. One may simply skip on over to @real_peerreview to see just how blatantly idiotic leftists are.
One defense of cold-blooded murder is that a woman may not be financially well equipped to bring a child into this world. It suffices to say, that no one would calmly explain to a woman with a 3 year old, that since times are tough it may be financially prudent to lop off the child’s head and dispose of the body quietly.
I am not making an argument for a total ban on abortions. Life which is the product of rape is an exception, I am willing to concede is a good reason to abort. The other is when the life of the mother is threatened. For all other cases, I judiciously ask of you to tame your animal urges and behave like well adjusted adults. If that fails you, I suggest you quickly remove yourself from civil society and live in the wilderness, a beast seeking only to tame your primal self.
In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with an amusing dilemma. If one accepts the premise that life is not sacred and that a woman has the right to murder her own child in cold blood then this leads to some interesting consequences.
If a condition x exists to allow for abortion other than the two I have mentioned above, then it follows that we may use this condition to allow for aborting according to preference of gender. Yes, that’s right.
Feminists must necessarily support the right to perpetrate female foeticide.