Calling Abusers' Bluff: Part Two

I have known many people who saw people closest to them as bad people and out of that attitude did what they could to abuse these people.

I have to say this. This is a stupid way to live.

If your partner really is a bad person, then by all means leave her. But what we see in these situations is a game. The perpetrator gets all sorts of things out of his relationship with the partner. And instead of rewarding the partner according to what he has been getting her, he instead uses the belief that she is a bad person to treat her like crap.

In essence, he commits a theft. And thieves have no business claiming morality. Once again, he gets a lot out of the relationship. And instead of rewarding the partner for what he is getting from her, he is treating her like rubbish.

I want to see more people see through things of that nature. What we are seeing here is a con. If the partner really was a bad person, then he couldn't wait to leave her. But these men not only stay in the relationships but also do whatever they can to keep the partner from leaving. This is beyond hypocrisy.

So it is time that these people have called their bluff. Once again, if their partner really was a bad person, then they couldn't wait to leave her. And until they do, they are obligated to treat the partner according to what they are getting out of the relationship.

And it is time that more people who are vulnerable to such things arm themselves with these arguments so that they don't be conned and victimized any more.

Personality Disorders And Crackpot Theories

We see people creating a viciously competitive culture, in which one has to be a jerk in order to get ahead. Then these same people howl sociopath or narcissist when someone acts according to its injunctions.

First we see it claimed that people who have feelings are weak. Then we see it claimed that people who do not have the same feelings as oneself are narcissists and sociopaths. This level of hypocrisy must not have been easy to achieve. Unfortunately it is just this: Hypocrisy.

To the people who howl about narcissists and sociopaths: Do you have empathy for these people? And if you do not, how can you claim that they are sociopaths and narcissists and that you aren't?

An instructive film toward that effect was Cape Fear. The lawyer who buried a case was seen as a good person; the man whose case he buried was portrayed as a fiend. Extreme amounts of compassion were afforded the lawyer, whereas the client was portrayed as a monster. How does this work? You practice compassion, you have to extend it to everyone. And if you do not, then you are no better than the psycho killer.

So now we see some people being portrayed as evil and only capable of evil whatever they do. This militates against most basic reason. Anything human is capable of choice; and anything capable of choice is capable of rightful choice. This includes – sociopaths, narcissists, “perverts,” what have you.

So you are weak and stupid if you have feelings, and you are a monster if your feelings are different from people around you. Once again, this level of hypocrisy must not have been easy to achieve.

It is time that more people see through this hypocrisy and lay a claim on actual reality, whether or not it is supported by crackpot theories.

Remain With Your Children

I have noticed the following. The people whose parents were abusive but took care of them both love and hate their parents. Whereas the people whose parents left them simply hate them.

My daughter does not suffer either abuse or neglect, and she loves both me and her mother very much. The best scenario is the parent taking care of the child while treating the child well. That way there is no reason for the child to hate the parent, and the child loves the parent, as is meant to be.

I have rarely seen the level of antagonism that is found in children of parents who left them. There are some situations in which marriages or relationships should not continue; but parenting has to continue in all cases. So now I know a woman in Texas who has stayed with a man in order to take care of the child, even though the relationship is totally dead. Maybe she has pointers for people who are faced with similar dynamics.

I once encountered a man who called himself a producer. He produced 8 children by 8 different women without taking care of them. This level of irresponsibility is staggering. Many people go on about women's promiscuity; but it takes two to tango. And when a man behaves in this way, it is moral condemnation not on woman but on man.

If you have children: Remain in their lives, whether or not your relationships continue. You do not want to be subjected to the kind of hatred that I have seen in children whose parents abandoned them. It does get better. And the more benefit you accomplish, the better it gets.

Obesity And Overconsumption

Whether you have a huge house, drive a Hummer or overeat, you are committing the same wrongdoing. It is reckless overconsumption of resources.

I am not guilty of that. My energy bill is $30 a month. I live in a small unit, take public transportation and am very physically fit. I am here to tell you that this is a wholesome lifestyle, and I do not miss the more prosperous lifestyle one bit.

When I was writing against obesity, I was accused of being shallow and of thinking with my penis. However there are more weighty arguments against obesity than that it is unsightly. The real problem with obesity, once again, is that it is overconsumption of resources – overconsumption to the point that it is no longer even good for the person doing it.

Will one person overeating cause problems to the environment? Unlikely. However when we have half of America being obese, we have a real problem. We have unsustainable consumption. And that is a moral issue, affecting our children.

The same is with less visible reckless consumption. Huge houses, Hummers, and further down the line, take up vast resources. People are at a pressure to overconsume. It is ridiculously equated with responsibility, which it is totally not. The responsible thing to do is to live humbly and leave the world a better place than you have found it. Overconsumption is in fact irresponsibility.

Once on an Internet forum a woman complained that many people there had property that fit into a paper bag. Apparently she thought that that is wrong. It is not. We do not overconsume. We do not pollute. And any number of us are hard enough workers.

Why on earth would people be under pressure to do something as irresponsible as overconsumption? Maybe because the economic might of a nation is measured as GDP, and GDP rises when people spend money. But GDP rises also when someone goes to a hospital for an operation. Not all ways to raise GDP are equally ethical. If it means that people are forced into a lifestyle that they do not want, where they have to overconsume, then that is not an ethical way to raise the GDP.

A much more ethical way to raise the GDP is through implementation of better technologies, such as the Hydrogen Transmission Network (http://htnresearch.com). Here is a technology that makes sense both economically and environmentally. And putting it into place will be a true act of responsibility – moving energy and water consumption to non-polluting sources, so that people can have everything they have now and much more with vastly fewer destructive effects.

As for obesity, it appears that some people are predisposed to it. However when obesity rises by a factor of two in two decades, then we have a demographic problem. Now, even people who wouldn't have been obese in the past are becoming obese. This is bad in a number of ways, the biggest one once again being that it is overconsumption.

So I want to call attention to these problems. The solutions for these are not hard at all. Mine has been to reduce consumption to a more manageable level. And it is also to put into place technologies that do not pollute or exhaust resources, so that people can have what they have now and more with vastly fewer destructive effects.

Doing Good And Doing Well

One of the most pernicious arguments I have ever heard stated is that, if you are getting some benefit for yourself from doing good, you are not actually doing good. It is time that that be refuted.

The world as it stands to be impacted by you consists of yourself and other people. If you benefit yourself and other people, then you positively impact upon the world. There is no contradiction here. The people doing this don't just benefit others and don't just benefit themselves, they benefit both – and, as sum total, the world. So that when Elon Musk gets tons of money from selling environmentally responsible technology, he is benefiting the world – both others and himself - and is doing the right thing by any measure. He deserves every bit of what he gets for himself by producing technologies that benefit people and the environment. He is not a hypocrite; he is a hero. 

This ethic is summed up in one statement: Do good and do well. Do what you can to benefit the world, and there is no shame in benefiting from it yourself.

An even worse claim I've heard is that if someone gets a good feeling from doing altruistic acts, then he is not really being an altruist. Unbelievable nonsense. Maybe it should feel good to do good. Maybe that is what is meant to happen in a rational universe. On another subject, what damn business is it of yours if someone feels good doing something for as long as the good is done?

There is absolutely no contradiction between doing good and doing well. Certainly there are some on the Left who impugn capitalism; I do not. Business has produced many good things. However there is also merit to things besides business, and business itself owes to many people such as scientists, teachers, military and police, which libertarians and some on the Right tend to forget. And while there are many charitable efforts that are corrupt and incompetent, the one in which I am involved – the Salvation Army – is neither.

This poisonous thinking has gone so far that I once heard a guru say that altruism is based on being three years old and your well-being depending on others. I have news for this person. The Salvation Army does not consist of three-year-olds. It consists of honest, responsible adults working to make the world a better place. Nor do they possess a “victim consciousness.” They act boldly and decisively, and they have done many things requiring strength and courage. Much more so than most people who have these beliefs.

Do they get a good feeling from doing what they do? Whether or not they do, they should. Once again, doing good should feel good. If feeling good is the motivator, then who cares? Once again, what business is it of yours how someone feels about themselves for as long as the good is done?

So it is time that there be a serious response to such claims, as they are absolute poison to society. There is nothing contradictory between doing good and doing well, and there is nothing contradictory between being altruistic and feeling good doing it. It should feel good to do good, and if you are doing good you have the right to benefit from it yourself. And in people such as Elon Musk and Bill Gates we see the two working together to achieve spectacular benefit.

The Right To Arm Bears

The issue I want to talk about is the right to arm bears. It appears that there is a cross-social consensus that arming bears is not the right thing to do.

If you are a Republican, the bears are competition. It is treason to arm them.

If you are a Democrat, the bears are bigger than most other animals and have enough advantages already.

If you are suburban, you will not want armed bears to show up at your door.

If you are a Christian, the bears are meant to serve humans and should not be armed.

If you are a skinhead or a Nazi, the bears are an inferior species and should not be armed.

And if you are a libertarian, it is not our job to arm bears. Bears should be arming themselves if they want their freedoms or their rights.