Rant: Philosophy is BS

I’ve been thinking about philosophy lately. I can now see why people think its BS.  A few days ago, in course of a few beers, I conversed with a well-school guy on the history of 1960’s and its consequences. There was a good amount give and take dialogue with common ideas in between. But a certain point, I concluded this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  Let me explain.

Exploration of ideas without consideration of real-world consequences is where people stop buying into whatever you’re saying or at least, I call BS.  The guy asserted drugs like LSD, unadulterated use, are simply brain altering substances and can raise conscientiousness to a higher level.

Yeah right.

That’s hippie talk.

Multiple acid trips are good way to go crazy.  Scientific literature journals on drug abuse and addiction express stuff like chronic LSD-induced psychosis and long-term flashbacks as significant adverse consequences to these drugs.

What about the therapeutic benefits to LSD? Yeah, there some work on treating alcoholism with it. But for the most part, this stuff is unpredictable as it depends on factors like setting, genetics, mind-set, expectations, and drug content purity.

Later, the idea of families living on communes as a viable lifestyle is nonsense. Imagine my head shacking no, side to side, at this point in time. I always ask myself, in this system, who is going to take out the trash? The idea is shared responsibility, no restrictions, live free kind of society. But reality is a bunch of potheads squatting a campsite, never scooping the 3 day old dog poo from the carpet, kids running around like Lord of the Flies, and every guy is father to some kid, but don’t know which one.

And here’s my thing: fine. I don’t care. Do all the free sex, love, and drugs to your heart’s content. But as soon as there’s a kid in the picture, I got a problem with it now.  This is a good way to screw up a kid. The neglect of no adult supervision or parents, the abuse of horrible living standards, the non-sense of home schooling from screwballs, and then the denial that, hey, what is it to you, can’t judge, stop generalizing–folk, is dangerous and irresponsible.

So back to philosophy. This goes for right-wing philosophies too. One comes to mind. Pro-lifers adamant campaign against the morning after pill, or Plan B, and Wal-Mart’s move to relucntantly sell over the counter back a few years ago because a) pro-lifers belief its an abortion pill and b) it encourages sexual activity, and) its morally wrong/bad to give this to the public, specifically teenagers.

Here’s why I don’t buy into their campaign. Its a contraceptive pill that works exactly like birth control, that you take after sex instead of before. Awesome. Here’s a product that can reduce the number of abortions in this country. Awesome.  And this can prevent unplanned pregnancies. Awesome. Do they bite? Nope. They say its an abortion pill and its dangerous to take it.

I suspect their stance is not motivated by pro-life, but teenagers having sex without consequences. They didn’t have sex in high school and judge those who did. And now its payback.

Instead on working on and coming to common ground with the pro-choice folk like reducing the rate of teenagers having sex, both are quite content to yell at each other on the margins.

Conclusion: I don’t like dogma or orthodoxy. Ideas are fine. I like playing with them and exploring them. But the neglect of real-world results suggests to me they don’t know what they are talking about. BS I call.

Silent Marjority’s Scream

What is it about feminists, activists, Marxists, and the whole lot of them? The people argue with an indignant puss-on. These ideas have merit but boil them down and you’ll find nothing more than anger mixed in with an ideology.

What’s annoying is this camp of ‘open-minded progressives’ is that they look for the exploitation, oppression, or victimization, everywhere. Sometimes they reach for it. The expression, “rule of thumb” as commonly used in society is meant as a general guideline for whatever context. But the myth is rooted in a story of beating a spouse no bigger than a male’s thumb. Of course feminists in the 1960s ran with it and pointed to society, crying the sexist elements of oppression and exploitation. So anytime you use it, you’re sexist or ignorant pig? Even in casual conversation, those types of phrases makes you a bad person?

Or this retard position: a woman can’t go out and have sex like a guy. She’s a slut if she does and a guy is King Kong. It’s like that crack versus cocaine sentencing debate people try to pull. Oh the BS!  It’s all unhealthy! Guy or girl, fooling around with an unapologetic tempo gets you a doctor’s appointment.

Besides sociological research suggests it’s women who perpetuate the double standard. Guys may initiate it or take note of it, but don’t care after five minutes.  Honestly do you really think Joey looks at your mini skirt says, “what a slut.”? Please. You just got Joey’s attention, if anything.

When it comes to rape, a lot people are afraid to challenge these groups because of the sensitivity of the issue. I understand. Rape victims are not responsible to what happened to them. And to blame the victim is not anyway helpful or insightful to preventing/treating rape.

But what they want to bring up is the point males get rapped too. I remember learning in it Social Deviance class in college about it, and the class made it out that both women and men are at risk, but rather equal risk. But do the real world math. For the majority of rape cases, the victims are women.

It’s like saying Jermone “the Bus” Bettis, 6-foot, 255 pound man and one of the Olsen twins have no difference in risk. ‘All the same and can’t judge’ stupid nonsense they try pull. Just do the math and go with the odds. The overwhelming majority of reported rape cases, like date rape, are women being victimized by males, particularly in the context of alcohol. I am not saying all cases, but oh just around 95.99% of the them.

When you get into these arguments or debates, everybody gives them a pass. “Oh she’s passionate, or he’s fighting for a noble cause.” Please. Scratch the surface and find out that they are just angry. I mean, angry at their parents. Some abuse or neglect went on, or brutalization at the hand of an ex-boyfriend, coupled with some intelligence and you get a mad protesting feminist. We can’t say she’s crazy or nutty because she uses feminism as academic paradigm and thats somehow legit. Because she gets a pass, she can be angry all she wants because that’s perceived as passionate.

It’s the same pass we give over-zealous religious people when they argue about nonsense like Plan B or morning-after pill, which works exactly like the Pill, is an abortion (but actually its one of the major factors of reducing abortions in this country). They connivence sane people of their retarded arguments, which in turn, makes you look like an asshole for not sympathizing. “Well he’s a deeply religious man. That’s his beliefs. We can’t judge.”

Oh yeah? Brother Jed on speaker circle, same sanity as Dali Lama? The guy screams at you for wearing shorts on a hot day and says you are going to hell for enticing lust in men. Dali Lama wrote a book on happiness. Still the same huh?

I’ll get to you Hippies and Marxists soon enough….