Any term given an unnecessary modifier should always be treated as suspect. Social Justice, for example. Why do they add the Social? Social Justice is a special kind of justice that only applies to a small group of people. Anyone not in that special group will actually have justice, real justice, pushed aside.
Social Justice is Affirmative Action.
Social Justice is the fight against White Privilege.
Social Justice is the minimum wage.
Social Justice is restitution for slavery ended over a century ago.
Social Justice is equality of output, regardless of input.
Social Justice is not justice for all.
Below is a video that’s making the rounds this week….
Now, setting aside the insane and laughable circular “logic” this unfortunate professor is using, the real argument she’s making is that unborn babies have little to no worth.
If I go out and buy myself a 16GB flash-drive for $10, and realize when I get home that it has fallen out of my bag and is lost, I’ll be ticked off, but I’ve really only lost $10 and the time it took me to buy the thing. However, if I get the flash-drive home and plug into my computer and transfer all my kids’ baby photos, my wedding photos, video of my kids’ first steps, photos of the last vacation I spent with my dad before he passed away, and the novel I’ve been working on for the last ten years and is 99% finished, and erase my computer as I’m going to sell it, and then lose the flash-drive…. Well, that would be a tragedy.
The nutty professor in the video sees human beings in the same way. A person only has worth if he or she has experiences, memories, and relationships. An unborn fetus has none of that and is therefore quite worthless and easy to replace.
And this is the true evil of abortion: the low opinion that pro-abortionists have of the intrinsic worth of human life (i.e. being created in the image of God). They love to say they have a high opinion of women’s rights, but that’s complete BS. There are few people who hate women more than pro-abortionists.
So who is God according to this result-of-affirmative-action professor? The pregnant woman is — she alone can arbitrarily decide if the unborn person has worth or not simply by choosing to have an abortion or to not have one. And when she chooses not to have an abortion, the future experiences and so forth of the child will retroactively give the unborn baby the value it needs in order to make the abortion of it wrong…. or something like that…..
Here is a video recently posted by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson entitled A New Years Letter to the World. It is quite interesting and I encourage you to watch it (just over 20 minutes).
Peterson states that the real problem of conflict in our world is not religion, but rather tribalism. And the problem with tribalism is that people will cooperate with each other but only in small groups which are in conflict with other small groups. This causes division and is unavoidable when people group together to defend a value system. The solution is not to devalue everything, which causes nihilism, nor is the solution a totalitarian state, which forces all people under one value system. The solution is individualism — but not a selfish individualism; instead, one of personal responsibility and caring action.
I’m always amazed at the self-contradicting ideology of feminism: Women are as tough as men, but if a man treats a woman as harshly as he would a man, he is a misogynistic a-hole. Only half of that ideology can be true, and I would say it’s the latter half.
I’ve heard Douglas Wilson say that feminism has only two tenets: 1) All men are jerks; 2) Women are the same as men.
In the photo we see a graph of how often Trump interrupted Clinton in the three presidential debates. The graph was posted on Facebook by Christian author Michael Frost. He commented, “‘Manterrupting’: unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man. It’s a thing. And one of the world’s greatest manterrupters is running for president. Over 90 minutes of yelling over the top of his opponent, seizing the floor, and interrupting. This guy’s all class.”
Now, I am not going to to defend Trump against charges of rudeness; he obviously comes off as an arrogant jerk most of the time. But, does our friend Frost honestly believe that if Trump’s opponent in this election were a man, he wouldn’t interrupt him just as much, if not more, than he did Hillary?
Does Frost believe that Hillary is a delicate flower, who was somehow able to navigate her way through the harsh political waters over the years making it to the presidential debates, and is unable to handle Trump? Does Frost really believe that Hillary didn’t restrain herself in the debates as a strategy to egg Trump on and make him look all the more misogynistic so that she could play the sexist card? Could Hillary not have been just as aggressive as Trump if she felt it was advantageous to do so?
This is a perfect example of the contradiction in feminism. If feminists want women to be treated like men, but then get offended when they are, their ideology can not stand.