Sunday, November 16, 2008



noun: the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished

noun: recognition of the difference between one thing and another.

noun: good judgment or taste.


treating people differently through prejudice: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender

The word "discrimination" has been a hot topic recently in regards to the results of voting which did not turn out so well for one side regarding the majority view.

Admittedly as I review the opinions of the Black Progressive-Fundamentalists on this issue I have to say that just as they might be surprised of the fact that I have extended my "conservative viewpoints" as applied to my disfavor for the views of a "Black President", I must yield that they too can express a certain amount of consistency regarding their view that restriction on gay marriage is "discrimination". It is my aggregate thoughts that have made me who I am and thus I was not able to pack these viewpoints away and vote for "the Black guy" who ultimately is more in line with the people who I most fervently hold as my debate opponents. I yield that they too have the right to extend their notions of "equal treatment" held in the RACIAL domain over to the SEXUAL orientation domain.

Thus my argument against their line of reasoning will focus on the flawed constructs by which they have allowed the prohibition against same sex marriage to be seen as "discrimination".

Words have loaded meanings. When you are said to have 'discriminated' against someone any conscious person is driven to "check himself". Make sure it was not any hate or irrational thoughts that have lead you to your viewpoint. This is all that we can expect individuals to do in a free society where opinions are valued even if they don't correspond with your own.

The hidden hand in this debate that few people seek to talk about is that of ENDURING CULTURE and the consequences of altering it there in. Bottom line - there are some people who see themselves as REVOLUTIONARIES - seeking to "Speak Truth To Power" and erode all of those tentacles of power that stand opposed to their current target of scorn for the day. They call themselves "Progressives" and thus when one battle is won the "progress" onto yet another one, constantly seeking to remove strictures that stand in the way of man's free will. Acceptable behavior should be defined by the current collection of men, not by books that were written by men who have turned to dust in their graves.

Others see themselves as the conservators of the elemental rules of behavior and societal order that was handed to them and which is passed from generation to generation. Despite the fact that man's progression affords him access to great material gains as generations perpetuate and as well - our access to knowledge increases - their belief is that the elemental mores and rules for interaction with other men should stand the test of time despite these changes all around us. It is this continuity that affords us clarity and our ability to determine "right from wrong", without being confounded by a constant gray area as intellectualized by man.

In my view this is the key difference between these two camps that do constant battle.

While I am appreciative of the perspective of the Progressive - I am none the less a Conservator of Culture in my prevailing sentiment.

I wise to the bias added to the word "discrimination" because those who throw this around know the power of such admonition. Few people want to be called "racist" just as the word "discrimination" is used. In truth, however, DISCRIMINATION is a fundamental requirement so that we might live as civilized people. At the end of this passage I hope to prove that it is not DISCRIMINATION in and of itself that the Progressive detests - instead he simply seeks to shift the menu of issues by which it is PERMISSIBLE to discriminate upon. The absence of discrimination is anarchy.

Anyone who has kept up with my views is well aware of my position: PROGRESSIVISM is INORGANIC. It cannot exist in a world all by itself. I've learned recently that the plant that produces corn as we know it today cannot exist absent MAN who must harvest it and provide it with order so that it will perpetuate. Take away man - and this crop that we know as a special wild grass that produces corn cobs will die off because the kernels will fall to the ground and the next generation of corn plants will choke each other via its entangled root system. It needs a semblance of ORDER as a ecosystem by which to seek to alter the prevailing order. The farmer must provide the corn plant with adequate spacing in the field so as to afford this corn plant that has taken the form that we know today, to live for yet another generation.

Our CULTURE is the order that man needs to survive. Those priding themselves with never having DISCRIMINATED against another, so frequently, are simply extolling the fact that they have never had the prevailing burden of crafting a culture for society which ultimately produced the high quality of life/standard of living that they find desirable. Just as a politician who has no one who hates him can't possibly have held any position of importance where the distribution of scarce economic resources are up for debate - so too with the person who is able to pride himself upon his past that is free from discrimination. This is no vanity in my view.

The fact is that there are many places where two competing values cannot reside in the same space lest one be irreparably perverted and destroyed. It is my view that some people who work as advocates are never required to stand besides the "baby that they have birthed". They instead are able to shift the blame of the resulting fallout upon the fact that their entire docket of ideas have not been adopted by society and thus - they can't be held liable until all opposition to their plan is destroyed. Once again they prove their theirs is not an ORGANIC concept.

No comments: