The so-called science of human sexual orientation and secular sexual morality

Lately I have been seeing numerous articles showing up in my news feed on my phone about "gay genes," and "birth order affects." It seems that the media is filled with this new so-called science experiment which claims to show what is said to be genes linked with homosexual traits. It looks interesting and may even pass under some peoples bullshit detector, but, not mine. There are so many issues with this most recent study it is hard to narrow them down. 

A lot is made of the so-called science of human sexual so-called orientation when it comes to arguments for homosexuality/gayness being OK. However, I contend that you do not need to be innately such to defend ones rights to behavior of a same sex nature. Moreover, I contend that a lot of the science we have is actually a mixture between decent science and a bunch of junk pop-science with no actual backing in the overall information we have. Yes, you occasionally get something worthwhile, but, it is under a mountain of bullshit the size of a Hawaiian volcano. 

It is often said that there is a consensus on the issue of human sexuality and desire. This is not correct as we do not have any sort of actual concise full scientific theory for human non-heterosexuality at this time. We have lots of hypotheses, but, not an actual scientific theory of causation of the exclusively homosexual male nor female. Nor do we have have any scientific theory on bisexuality either on any scale. The truth is the issue is not as easily investigated as one might think it is. Numerous times previous studies which claimed to show things like a so-called "gay gene" have failed to be able to be reproduced successfully and thus cannot be validated using the scientific method.

When it comes to the latest study on genes it was done in only European Countries and was only done on about 1000 men. This is only one Country and it is a very small sample. In fact, it is really too small a sample to be meaningful scientifically at all. Their gay genes were some genes related to this sample of men's male chromosomes. Some of them were differently expressed in the gay males from the straight males. This was than interpreted to be linked to the orientation difference in these men and nothing else. Not only that, but, it was not a random sample either. The scientists chose their subjects from various Gay Pride events. They also screened out all women (yes, all women) and all bisexual males (yes all) from participating in the study. In the end scientifically this is once more a meaningless study that shows us nothing new. As well as being something that has not at all been reproduced in any other Country. 

However, when it comes to the search for the common cause of homosexuality in males looking for certain genes on the male chromosomes is only one hypothesis for causation. There are also other ideas such as the birth order affect which talks about hormones and antigens in the womb. Where people with older brothers the younger ones will tend to be gay due to the fact the mom's womb will fire off these antigens and it will feminize the fetus and thus give the new born boy a gay brain which is female typical and thus homosexual. The only thing is this too does not always hold up every time. How many large families exist with lots of brothers where all of them are 100% heterosexual? Quite a lot actually. Which makes it hard to actually be able to say this is duplicated in the real world. This does not mean there is nothing to the research simply that it is not a 1 to 1 cause and affect scenario. 

However, the real issue lies in the numbers of the demographics when they are added up. Cross-culturally in many Countries the numbers come up the same and that is most same-sex attraction is happening in a mostly straight or mostly heterosexual population. This means that the actual driver or drivers of same-sex desire is not something that effects most people to the point of it becoming a part of their identity nor their main attraction and desire. Most Androphile (man for man) attraction in males is found as a side component to a larger Gynophile (man into woman) attraction and desire. Which means that if it comes from birth order it does not equal most of the time anything more than a passing fancy that comes and often by the time one is in their 30's is all, but, fleeting. 

All the studies in the world can be done on genes, epi-genetics and womb environment. However, if one does not test this massive majority of same-sex individuals and sticks only with exclusive homosexual males the research will never be broad enough to be conclusive. This is why excluding any form of bisexual identifying and also mostly straight identifying from tests means you cannot have the broadest sample nor the most accurate one. Not only that, but, it is important to include these people as a control group of sorts to see what is the actual genetic make up of the cross section of orientation of desire. There is also the possiblity that there is no "gay" genes at all and defenders of LGBT rights are grasping for a naturalistic fallacy straw. 

In fact, the more research tries to find this gene or these genes the more it seems they are shooting fish in a barrel. Why do I say this? I say it because it makes no sense from a scientific standpoint of evoluntary biology for their to be a part of the human gnome dedicated to making any man or woman gay. See nature is not like some creationist god that molds us into her or his creation. Any gene or genes that did have an influence on ones future same-sex desires would have this as an unintended affect of some sort of unrelated cause. The same goes for in Utero womb developement. Antigens and androgens in the womb are not intended to stop procreation between the sexes intentionally. It is an unintended consquence of a broader sexual dimorphism between the sexes. 

In other words there is no gay gene or genes coded specifically with the purpose of inputing into the human brain to create the output of same-sex behavior in that person, Any gene or genes infuences only a part and a small one at about 30% according to the studies we have. The rest is envinromental and whether one becomes homosexual exclusively, bisexual in some form, mostly heterosexual or even completely heterosexual despite containing the gene or genes is a combination of both biology and envinronment. Yes, that is right according to even the American Psychological Association and American Phsyciatric Association sexual orientation is a combimnation of numerous factors and biology is only one part. 

Not only that, but, out of what consistutes biology "genes" are one of the smallest parts. Even in the Utero hypothesis it is the Androgen and Antigen bath that really molds the predispositional "gay" brain and wiring. With the genes playing really the most minor of part which is either anywhere between 20-30% depending on which research is looked at. Not only that, but, it is predispositional and not predeterminisitc of orientation as well. We know this because if same-sex desire comes from this experience and these genes most people do not have the disposition at the expense of an even greater outcome of being at least mostly straight. If having "gay" genes meant you always were determined to be gay there should be no bisexuals nor mostly heterosexuals. The disposition for the same-sex drive would be there exclusively always and bis and mostly heteros would be a myth which they are not. 

Further more the amount is so small even if the genes hypothesis is found to be the case that it is meaningless. You could just as easily have such an amount of genes prone for alcholism, but, not become an alcholic. Genes might drive dispositions and impulses, but, they do not drive outcomes of those impulses. It does not give any justification for or against the idea that homosexuality is ok. Someone whom was anti-gay can simply say that genes drive impulses, but, not acting on those impulses and point to alcholism for example as a reason to not act on said impulses. I do not agree with said conclusion, but, they would have a point. 

The true answer is to keep looking, but, to not have a care about if there is such a thing. The samething with the Utero hypothesis it does not need to be true for ones orientation to be considered moral. For it is sexual behavior that is moral and not orientation of ones desires. It is whether or not you are harming others or yourself that is at the heart of sexual morality. Although even that is too simplified. It is not moral to cheat on your seginificent other for example. The truth is the both complex and simple ideas that make up overall sexual morality do not matter on your genes. Or on your in womb environment. Or whether something is nature or nurture. Or whether it is chosen or unchosen. Or whether it has changed or stayed static all your life. Whether it is mutable or immutable. It matters on the actions you take based on those desires.

At the end of the day there could turn out to be 96% nurture and 5% nature to ones overall sexual desires with no change to the morality or immorality of being being gay or lesbian, or bisexual. What matters is if you are an overall good person and the content of your character and moral compass. Ones moral compass is the crux of all of this to me and one does not need scientists to find anything innate at all to show how one can be a moral being and be non-heterosexual. Just like someone whom is heterosexual is not devoid of one like radical nutcases shout about in their nonsesnse academic circle jerks. Whether you are straight, gay, bi, open to trying anything once, mostly straight, mostly gay, once mostly gay now mostly straight, experimented when young now not interested. Whatever you are has 0 impact on your ability to be a moral person. 

Happy International Men's Day! Let us celebrate and support men!

November 19th, 2017 is International Men's Day a very important day for men that is underappreciated and under supported. On this day we have an entire day dedicated to getting information and asking for support about all of the things men face. As well as speaking about all the wonderful achievements and contributions men make to the human race. 

It is a well known, but, often not cited fact that men make up to 95% of workplace deaths. That 85% of homeless people are men that have no place to go. That male victims of domestic abuse and assaults have no place to go no shelters in most places. That men whom talk about sexual assaults and rapes are often not listened to. That domestic violence, harassment and the like are not gendered, but, are often portrayed as women's issues. 

Men are often blamed as the cause of most of humanities ills, but, in truth men help make the world go round. Men are also more often then not the power behind all of the things that let us have a modern civilization. From the sewer workers to the people that string the power lines. The reason so many men die on the job is they take the most dangerous jobs putting their own life at risk. While women can work in these jobs it is more than likely to be instead men doing them. Leaving most women (not all) in less dangerous occupations.

In addition, it is a time of the year to try and rally support for causes such as Men's mental health needs and suicide prevention. Men are not evil people most are hard working people whom help make the world turn. We need to stop vilifying men and masculinity as some sort of toxin or danger. Men need to be celebrated for what they do for all of us. They also need to be supported in their own time of need. It is only just for all that men do everyday to help civilization run on time. 

Men need to be able to love themselves and live a life which nurtures the self not live a projection of what women want.

A lot of times when you look up information related to the manosphere you end up with a bunch of sites talking about what women want in men. You will find sites talking about Game and things like that. You will also find sites talking about masculine traits through the eyes of what women find attractive. Usually tossed in there somewhere will be talk about alphas, betas and omegas. Not usually do you see sites talking about manhood and what it means or not for the man himself.

The only website on masculinity that I ever really found that was based on manhood from the view of the man is Allan J. Frantzen's website. He is the man whom came up with the term being a GYB man or a Grab Your Balls man. Which I found to be a very refreshing site to find and it also called out calling men effeminate or emasculated without having their testicles removed. In fact, it was finding his website that helped light the spark of an idea for my own website you are finding yourself reading right now. I figured maybe I should do my own blog about manhood and maleness that looked at things from a different view point than Game players or attraction gurus.

My personal mindset has been from the very beginning that manhood is not based on "otherism." It is not based on what women define as manhood, but, instead by manhood itself. That ones sense of worth as a man should not come from an external source, but, instead from ones own view of themselves as worthy. That a mans worth exists in a world where no woman even exists. That men have their own value as people regardless of whether they slay the ladies or turn them all off like vinegar. That men need to put their own well-being first and foremost which means to put the needs for women's attention as last.

In fact, the theme of so many sites dominated only by what women want means men are constantly living for women and not themselves. Even if said sites are right about what they say women want they are about women and not best practices for men. There is no emphasis on the best and most healthy or whole way for a man to live. There is no emphasis on the mental, physical or emotional needs of men. It is all about the desires of women so much for being sites for men. Masculinity becomes no more than another word for what women want and not about a man at his core. In essence manhood is no longer about being at peace with your core as a man. Instead it becomes placating for the chance to spread your seed.

Masculinity is not just what women want it is much more than that. Men should be able to embrace whom they are no matter how it affects women's attention to them. At the end of the day it is not the woman that they see in the mirror before bed and as they rise. It is themselves that a man sees and it is themselves they need the most to have reverence for. It is the self they need to love, to nurture the most and the self they need to honor. The self they need to see as their target of loves arrow. Not in some narcissistic sense, but, in a very much rational sense. If you cannot love yourself whom can you love. 

Masculine traits, feminine traits and just plain human traits.

If one actually looks up on Google or some other search engine the words masculine traits one is sure to find numerous results. Some of them will be your generic "be the Alpha" sort of sites. Some will be the average dating type website. Others will be about Evolutionary Psychology an actually backed up science of human nature. Meanwhile still others will be "game" websites which preach their ways will get you the girl if you work it right. 

Sometimes you can find very useful and truthful claims about what is masculine psychologically and feminine psychologically. Other times what you find is snake oil salesmen pitches. Still further there is also a whole bunch of blatantly anti-male feminist crap online as well which calls masculinity toxic. When one is wondering what is masculine and what is feminine the net can harm as well as help your mindset. There are some really good websites dedicated to men and masculinity. There is also a bunch of junk. 

Let me state first of all I do not think being feminine actually makes you less of a man. However, I do find there to be a difference between a masculine and feminine man. These are not matters of one being worth more than the other when it comes to human worth and value. Just because people are different even within the same sex does not mean those differences have any moral or ethical weight. You judge a person by the contents of his character and not how limp or firm his wrist is. However, I do find that the differences do exist for sure. 

I have taken more than one Gender Identity Expression and psychology test on the net. I find I always get the same results more or less. I end up with either a standard or very high masculine metric on each one of them simply by answering authentically about how my brain works when presented with certain situations. Some of these situations are more generic than others. Further still some psychological testing simply uses descriptors and sliding scales of where you sit in regards to it. 

Also, one must differentiate between what ones brain thinks or responds like and whether said person actually acts in accordance with those thoughts. A person could think in a more masculine way than they act in the actual environment around them. One could also think more feminine typical than they act as well. Not every little reflex, thought or desire manifests in behavior or mannerisms. The point being that metrics do exist that are not just some airy fairy nonsense and I would never argue otherwise. 

Yet, some things that seem to get lumped into the feminine side sometimes is to me patently bullshit and not feminine at all. For example the BEM sex role inventory puts compassion in the feminine box. So, I get like 20% -40% feminine on some tests along side 100% masculine in the same exact test. Mainly due to things like compassion being coded as being feminine instead of just being a human trait and perfectly compatible with being in the masculine box. So, men whom take these tests get coded by default as some sort of androgynous being simply for being human. 

So, men are incapable of being caring of others is basically what this misandric anti-male nonsense is trying to say. The standard non-androgynous man is an uncaring, cold hearted prick? This is complete nuttiness to say that the moment you might somewhat care about anything you are becoming like a woman. There are things that are definable and masculine or feminine, but, that is not one of them. It is a human trait that manifests irregardless of what is in between your legs. Often men's compassion is shown differently, but, it sure as hell exists.

A good example would be crying and I will use myself as an example of men's feelings. If I were to be super sad about something to the point I was possibly going to have my eyes become watery I would never cry around a stranger. I just would not if I cry it needs to be around someone I trust or better yet alone with no one around. During my more depressive days at work for example I would never cry if I were to work in the center. Tears do not help me work at all it is an unproductive behavior. Now, when I got home if the issue was bad enough a small little bit of water might come down my chin, might, but, maybe not either. 

This is not due to being told not to cry I was far from told boys do not cry during my childhood. It is because my way of behaving during times of sorrow is different from the way the average woman would because I am a biological male. It is in large part due to the fact that mens tear ducts literally work differently physiologically than a womans does. It literally takes a lot more for them to get the equivalent physiologically to what something small can do to a womans tear ducts. This is a masculine trait based completely on what happens to males when they go through puberty. It is biological differences which make men seem to be less compassionate when we simply show emotions differently. 

What about men that do cry a lot? Well, odds are they had something else happen to them in the womb to make it so they were less masculine and sex typical in that way. The point I am trying to make though is that just because emotions are expressed differently by men does not mean we do not have them. To argue we do not simply because men do on average have more emotional mastery in that way is to misunderstand human nature itself. It is to in essence make an argument that men are not human and never can be unless they deal with emotions the way a woman would. To argue that I see the word compassion and say I agree makes me or any man any amount of less masculine is absurd.

When it comes to myself I do not plan on dropping my masculine self-identification simply because some test tries to say I am whatever percent feminine. That would be equally absurd as some of the tests assumptions are. In the end of the day I am just going to as Allan J. Frantzen puts it Grab My Balls and own my manhood not some random testers that know nothing about me. I refuse to put the source of my own self-esteem at the mercy of people whom obviously do not think very highly of men in general.  

Mass Shootings are not the result of men or masculinity

Earlier today I took a look at my Google News feed only to see misandric bullshit flash at me as headlines. It looks the Feminazi side of the far-left is now parading around the idea that "toxic" masculinity holds responsibility for the recent mass shootings that have taken place. Further than that they went onto try and say all mass shootings are a product of this "toxic" masculinity. This is nothing less than the pure unadulterated hatred of men and their core characteristics as men known as masculinity. 

Somehow being masculine has been once again interchanged for mental instability possible in any member of the human species. It has been tagged with being the worst of human traits with women and the feminine being pure as the driven snow never violent or insane. This is historically and objectively wrong. In the real world any woman you meet could turn out to be a hysterical psycho as much as any man. Women also rape, women also pillage, women also shoot other people and women kill all the time. 

It is in human nature to have the possibility to embrace either being a good person who does not harm others or to embrace instead the evil part of human nature and go on a rampage. It has nothing to do with what is between your legs if you are going to do vile things. It comes down to the way your brain is functioning and also how your mindset is within that brain. It comes down a lot of times to brans that are damaged. For example brain tumors have turned sane folks into pedophiles and violent dangerous individuals. 

It is not just men that are violent all humans have the ability to do violence and sometimes that is completely justified. What people do not want to admit is people that people misusing violence are in fact choosing to use something that could be used for great good for the wrong things. Violence is not interchangeable with harming innocent people that is only one manifestation of this very important part of our human nature. No humans have ever been the so-called Noble Savage, but, we have been a savage alright. Violence can and has historically been used over and over for great good. 

Fighting off the barbarian hordes that want to rape and kill your tribes is built into our evolutionary psychology. It is in our deepest levels of our brains wiring to be prone to violence and extensive violence if needed in order to defend the village innocent from the barbarians at the gates. This is just in our nature as the species that we are. Sometimes that nature also can be misused for great evils and people can be manipulated into doing horrible things with the great power called violence. As Uncle Ben said "with great power comes great responsibility." It is something that we hold in our hand at any time which is why we need institutions that work to mitigate the violence. We call them governments. 

The truth is that masculinity is all about historically the opposite of harming others. It is the men that have historically fought off the predators and protected the innocent. They are the ones that were majority in the role of defenders and fighters on the front lines against the psychopaths that killed. It is the men as hunters that protected the women and children of the tribe living lives as disposable to the needs of the tribe for protection and provision. Indeed these men were often fighting other men whom themselves were also intending to protect their own tribes and too being disposable for their own tribe. It was a fight of two groups of men both considering what they were doing as protecting their own. 

Far from being the cause of mass shootings and modern day violence masculinity is most embraced in the people that jump in to help people out from that violence. All the security, police, firemen and so forth that jumped in for example in Las Vegas are portraying masculinity and embracing their manhood. Just like the women that jumped in and helped were showing the best in their femininity and womanhood. Mass shooters and other scumbags are embracing the darker side of human nature and anyone can do that the gender does not make a difference. Masculinity is not toxic being a dangerous psychopath is which is genderless. To say masculinity is toxic is to collectivize all people with a penis to being x, y or z.

We are in a weird time where all men are being called the bad men. We are constantly being told by the fem-fem the nutters in gender that all men need to repent for the actions of a few. That being a man is an original sin no different than being born into a world as fallen by Fundamentalists. Men are not bad because some men do bad things. Men are not all rapists and murderers. Men are simply usually going through our daily lives trying to show to the world we are people of good character. Trying to have good friends, decent families and find our partner or companions. Most men you meet will not be assaulting you or harming you in anyway. 

  

Victim is not code word for female or feminine. Being a victim does not remove a man's balls.

Recently the #MeToo has blown up on Twitter following the exposing of Harvey Weinstein within Hollywood. During this time many men started trying to include their own stories of being victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Yet, as soon as these men came out as being at one time victims they were told they were not to talk because it was taking the light off of "the real victims women." That they were trying to take the wind out of the sales of the hashtag.

There was a serious lack of any empathy for victims that was not within their own sex/gender. A serious lack of any caring about the stories that men had to share. Men came out about being molested, raped, harassed and what are they told to sit down and shut up because the women are talking. Or even more shameful when it was looked over these men were told they knew what it was like to be a woman. Or told other men would now be their enemies because they were exposing feminine traits.

No, these men are not now "female typical." No, these men are not now feminine because some low life abused them and used them. In fact, a fair number of the people that came out talked about women as perpetrators and not other men. So, where is the "toxic masculinity" in these experiences? Surely, if you were to call it toxic anything surely it would be toxic femininity. It does not take having a vagina to be a victim in this world. Any human can be a victim and any other human could victimize as we are all human.

Victim is not a code word for females or feminine. The last time I checked male victims of sexual predation did not get their genitals cut off. Nor the last time I checked is there any sort of historical standard of only women or feminine people being victims. Men die all the time at the hands of both sexes. Men get abused and attacked by both sexes. Men get raped, molested and exploited as well not just women. Men of all shapes and sizes. From the most chiseled abs to the skinniest bro all of them can become victims at the hands of a vile piece of trash low life. 

There is an empathy gap here between men and women. Women like those seeming to pop up in this hashtag are actively helping to widen the gap between this empathy. Men whom are victims should not be met with women saying they matter more because they are women. There needs to be just as much acknowledgement of men being human and worthy of empathy as any woman that has been abused. In addition, men should not be seen as having their balls removed due to being a victim at some point. Men do not become more feminine due to being victims at some point. Male victims remain all man.

Continuing to pull back the veil: What actually is Objectivism?

In my previous article I began the process of clearing up the misconceptions about Objectivism. However, one thing I did not do was give a detailed explanation of what Objectivism actually is. I mentioned some of the most often said criticism without saying what it actually was. I did this in part because Objectivism is easy to find out about with a simple Google search. Or you can go to your nearest book store and pick up one of Ayn Rands non-fiction books. 

Yet, in order to provide actual sources of what Objectivism is I have decided to do an article actually explaining what Objectivism is. Giving out examples as well as just the words used when describing the philosophy I subscribe to. I want to do this because it is easy to find misconceptions that take mundane, but, important things and twist them out of shape to sound like it makes you into a sociopath. The truth is it does not and in this article I am going to give more information on what this Objectivism thing is. 

First of all let us start with the very nature of reality. Reality is what reality is as the old saying goes. Existence well it exists is another way to put this. A=A is another way of putting this as well. There is an objective reality that does exist. It exists outside of what we would like to believe and even outside of our experiences at times. (Fake memories are easy to implant and humans can see patterns where there is none. We could be seeing things or hearing things.) There is an external reality it exists outside of us and outside of our brain/mind. 

This is the beginning of the philosophy. Our mind is to be used to understand what reality is and to use its higher cognitive abilities to be able to learn about the world. To investigate and find what reality is and how it works. In other words we need in order to understand what this objective reality is to use our reason. We need to use our reason and our ability as higher primates to our benefit in all aspects of life. In fact, only facts can help guide our life successfully and thus reason really is one of the most important aspects in our ability to live in the world and not live in our own self-delusions. 

As we continue down this path of philosophy we get to what is logically obvious, As existence is primary and not what we "believe." Since existence comes first and our mind/brain needs to be used to find the truth. That means our mind is of the utmost importance in our lives. What are the primary characteristics of the mind? Well, the most important one is that you are you. Your brain is you and you are your brain. Thus no one else has your mind which is in fact housed in your brain. The mind is the brain and thus we have no collective mind outside of the mind in our own heads. For this reason the mind is an attribute of our individual brains and thus the individual person. 

From here it becomes apparent that reason is an individual attribute as it is in the brain. For this reason the individual becomes the single most important unit in all of society. Due to this individualistic need for our species and for man as a being we need a world in which individuals are in fact the core of the society. Their own reasonable and individually thought out pursuits must come first. As one mind that is squashed by its opposite the ultimate one evil coercion, the ultimate unreason is too many. For this reason any moral codes that go against man's nature qua nature is evil and needs to be shunned. 

For this reason the only ethical code that has a moral and human nature based foundation is ethical egoism or rational self-interest. For this reason selfishness is indeed a virtue; which simply means pursuing ones own rational and well thought out non-self destructive values. However, as the mind/the brain requires for its full capacity to be able to pursue these values in order to live a fulfilled and complete life as a human anything than preaches against pursuing values is evil. In fact, it is the anti-human, the anti-life. Which means altruism aka sacrifice of your own need and desires to all others is evil, is the anti-human and ultimately the anti-life. 

This is not to be confused with benevolence which is a non-sacrificial win/win arrangement between two or more people. Helping for example a loved or even a complete stranger homeless on the street. These can easily be fit into benevolence once the proper context of the act is known. If the person is giving to others because it is one of their values as a person to help others. Providing they think, think, think and consider how best to pursue said value it is selfish. It is not altruistic because the person finds a rational value in others and wishes in pursuit of their whole range of values to help other people. 

It is in fact a form of justice. Justice and benevolence are two side of the same coin. To be benevolent to all of those whom deserve it. To your fellow humans whom have not shown any reason for your reason to find them wanting. To then from there think through and decide gosh darn it I want to help said person or people or cause. Whether it is a bum on a street or a friend you are close to. If you use reason and come to the conclusion using your proper reasoning that it is in your best interest and it is of value to help others you are simply enacting justice. 

There is a divide within Objectivism between two schools of thought one called "open,' and the other "closed." The open one proclaims that benevolence is a separate virtue unto itself. The closed system proponent does not add it to the virtue list, but, still sees how important it is. However, the open school also proclaims that Objectivism is an open philosophy and needs to be able to ebb and flow as new facts come in. The closed system proponent argument says of course we need to modify our views according to reality, but, that one does not get to add new discoveries to somehow being part of the philosophy of Objectivism. That it is only and nothing, but, the philosophy as described by Any Rand nothing can be added and nothing removed either. 

Basically, the Closed view says "Objectivism is the Philosophy for living life on Earth as discovered by Ayn Rand and only what was discovered by Ayn Rand in her works prior to her death." That yes, of course as A=A and existence is primary we all need to change our thinking when we are presented with new evidence that counters old ideas. However, that it is not Objectivism it is not the philosophy discovered by Ayn Rand and written about in her books prior to her death. It is new facts and we thus need to change our thinking on the topic, but, it does not change "Objectivism." It does not change what Ayn Rand actually discovered and proposes. That Objectivism and the contents of it was Closed upon the death of the philosopher herself. 

On the Open side David Kelley and The Atlas Society as well as several other groups say it is Open. That Objectivism itself needs to change with the times. That Objectivism was not closed when Ayn Rand died that it remains open for modification and for correction where it got things wrong. That any of those new discoveries than needed to be added to the philosophy itself. Not just to our base of knowledge and added to the rest of our thoughts integrated as a whole. However, that the very philosophy itself changes with new information and Objectivism remains Open to be more than what Ayn Rand wrote. In fact, David Kelley added benevolence as a separate virtue as a demonstration to this very notion. 

The point of this detour into Objectivist history has been done to show that not only is benevolence part of and discussed within Objectivist circles. It is in fact, so, discussed it spawns internal fractures between the people whom agree with the philosophy and is the undercurrent of various shunning, debates and general activities. So, far from people that claim taking selfishness as a virtue turning you into a sociopath. Taking it as a virtue and trying to use reason to come to a conclusion on the topic of benevolence as selfish leads some to even calling for the very philosophy to be Open passed the death of its discoverer and main proponent. Objectivists just like people of good character whom are non-Objctivists do not feel like other people are scum to be stepped on and hated quite the opposite in fact. 

Ayn Rand often talked about having a benevolent sense of life. Objectivists love other people and love cooperating with the people around us. Hell, we even live sometimes in communities that we adore. Being selfish and an individualist is not an isolationist nor an atomistic world view. In fact, this leads me perfectly into one of the core tenants of Objectivism. Which is the trader principle of living. In other words all exchanges, all relationships in life should be win/win mutually beneficial situations. No one should treat you as a sacrificial animal upon the alter of themselves and you better not do so to your fellow human either. This is the only logically consistent way of acting for an ethical egoist AKA a selfish person AKA a moral man qua man. So, the logical conclusion for Objectivism is the anti-sociopath and the pro-human person. 

Finally, we come to the final leg of this table held up by virtue and values. We come to the cherry on top of the philosophy that also other groups such as the broader Libertarian movements tend to share. That is the rules of the road as it were. The role of laws, rules and government. The role of actually being able to limit certain things done by others. Those things being the real Sociopaths that anti-Objectivists worry Objectivism brings. Those whom would harm others or their property. Those whom would be criminals to others. Those whom would initiate coercion on others. The fraudsters, the criminals, the truly anti-social people. Objectivism as a philosophy stands against all of these things and these sorts of people. 

We come to the non-initiation of coercion principle which is itself stemming from the other legs. If reason is an individual thing and force is the opposite of mind. Then coercion is evil and since coercion really is the ultimate evil there must be a means to stop it as well as other related activities that harm people and property. Specifically individual rights need to be enshrined and enforced and the easy bite-size way of saying that is the non-initiation principle. What can man qua man come up with to protect individual rights? Well, there needs to be Objective laws and a rule of law that is followed based on that objectivity. There is only one sort of institution that can create and then enforce through retaliatory force on a grand scale over whole swaths of land. That is a government and the only moral one. 

Governments must exist in order to put "coercion" into the hands of an objective third party institution which will than make sure that no Initiation of coercion is tolerated. In order to remove from everyday life the chaos of not having a stable system of laws and rules which people know about. Which people can follow that makes sure that the true Sociopaths face obstacles to their harming others. As well as being the only way to remove force from everyday life and put it into its proper place in being used to stop "the bad guys." 

Governments when they do what they are supposed to are a good thing. I am not Anti-Government I am anti-initiation of coercion. I am pro-individual rights and so is Objectivism as a philosophy. Objectivism holds that government is a necessary good and not an evil. Governments must exist as they have a purpose. A government that is acting properly is a proper and moral one. This means that Objectivism promotes Capitalism as it is the only moral social system in existence. It is what happens when the only coercion and aggression in society is in a retaliatory fashion and used only for self-defense. That system of people being free from authoritarian constraints from the state with the government as referee and law enforcers is called Capitalism. 

Capitalism is a [the only actually] social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

So, coming full circle to answer the question what is this Objectivism to which so many people fear so much fear and loathing? Well, I think the above is an extremely detailed and well done explanation of the philosophy I live by and apply as true to reality. However, I will finish off this article by quoting the woman herself not because I am a Randroid, but, because she put it so eloquently herself. Objectivism in the most shortest and simple explanation is as follows;

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality

1. Epistemology: Reason

1. Ethics: Self-interest

1. Politics: Capitalism

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

  

Shattering the veil of ignorance: Taking on the misunderstandings and downright falsehoods about Objectivism

Usually even the mere mention of Objectivism leads to scorn and a crazy hatred that is something so negative a believer in Woo Woo fluff would say would bring ruin. Most people whom hear the term think of some sort of secular Cult built around unquestionable ideas of one woman; that woman being Ayn Rand. They think to be an Objectivist; thus agreeing with her on philosophy and its proceeding politics means that you worship the ground she walked on. That you are a dogmatic and unthinking kool-aid drinker. That you are in fact a Randroid. 

However, to say that is to not understand Objectivism VS Ayn Rand worship. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with a philosophical world view and agreeing with the personal opinions of the philosopher. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with the overall world view presented and to agree unquestioning that the outcome of that philosophy is X, Y or Z. One of the biggest misunderstandings about Objectivism is that it promotes a dog-eat-dog world of chaos. 

At the core of Objectivism is indeed the virtue of selfishness in fact it is all about following your own personal and rational selt-interest. VS living a life based on otherism where others determine your life and journey over your own self. However, there is no reason for rational self-interest for selfishness to lead to chaos. Far from it chaos does not let us achieve our goals to keep and maintain our values in life. One needs some sense of stability to be able to know how to keep and maintain said values. The chaos of people crushing each other to get ahead is antithetical to being able to live a rational life. 

Thus one of the biggest hard-ons against Objectivism is on its face dead wrong and not correct. Let us take charity for one. Charity itself is not persay a virtue, but, it can be virtuous to be charitable to causes you really do care about. If you have a cause you are rationally passionate about and it is not self-destructive to give to it that is selfish. Charity in order to be moral must be based on a context in which you are not destructive of your own wellbeing. Some people find it amazing to give to others because of the cause being something they love. In addition one can get great joy and happiness from helping others and being benevolent. 

Just because a philosophy has selfishness at its core does not mean it preaches "me, me, me." Another example is people providing protection and provision to others. If someone has a loved one in their life; be that a lover, friends, family or even fellow community members of good character one is unrelated to. If someone is giving to them in the form of protecting them or providing for them it is not selfless unless it is self-destructive. Protection and provision spurned on by how important of a value someone or something is to you in a non-destructive way it is selfish to take up such a role. 

The truth is most people would not want pure altruism to take hold in a society. It would lead to said societies complete and utter destruction. Even something such as national security is based on people selfishly protecting that which one cares deeply about. Ones ability to be free and thrive in a safe, stable and of course most importantly liberty based society. So, soldiers volunteering to be in an all volunteer army because they have thought, thought, thought and rationally want to protect the nation and its allies are being as selfish as can be they are not selfless altruists at all. 

It is not selfish to let your child starve either. Or to look at the poor as scum beneath your feet. It is very selfish to help a poor person that genuinely wants to be on their own two feet. That genuinely wants to not be poor and to have their own job. Whom generally wants to have a good life and be a productive person in their own life. People that have thought about peoples characters and decided out of benevolence to help the downtrodden and the disabled/disordered are also being selfish provided they are not being self-destructive. Feeding your child is selfish because you are maintaining your genes in the pool of our species. Only a pure altruist would let their child starve. 

Now let us return to the criticism of Objectivism as being some sort of Ayn Rand circle-jerk cult. To be deadly honest some people whom call themselves Objectvists can be jerks, can be Randroid like worshipers and can be cult-like dogmatists. However, that is not Objectivism that causes this these people would act like this with philosophy and the philosophers no matter which one they chose. These folks just have that sort of temperament and no matter what they were they would act like this. If they dropped Objectivism for say Christianity they would become the fundamentalists. This is an individual issue that should be taken up with those individuals and any groups which share their unthinking narrative view. 

For example; Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was immoral. However, 99% of all people whom are Objectivists disagree with this stance vehemently. Ayn Rand denied evolution had a role to play in human psychology. This too a good deal of Objectivists disagree with. She thought that your sense of life determined whom you wanted to bang. This too most Objectivists would disagree with as well. She was herself anti-porn and this is not true of Objectivists everywhere. She had many personal opinions she came to on any number of matters. However, agreeing with her philosophically does not indicate you agree with any of her opinions she nor any other Objectivist "claims" comes from agreeing with the philosophy.  

I am an Objectivist and I will not deny this nor have I ever denied this on this here blog. However, I also disagree not only as vehemently with Ayn Rand as many other Objectivists with thinking brains, but, often times I disagree even more with her than my fellow Objectivists do. Topic after topic that would take up paragraphs I disagree and find evidence based on our current knowledge is black and white against Ayn Rands personal "outcomes" of her philosophy. However, philosophically Ayn Rand was absolutely correct on the proper world view for a free and prosperous life. I agree with her philosophy completely. I not only know it, I understand it concretely and put it to use in my life all the time. 

Digit Ratio/Gender Non-conformity and sexuality -- A Meta-Analyses of the actual research

There is a word that is often thrown about in our society called "Gaydar." and it is prevalent throughout various areas of science too. It is not just a term bandied about by people that come off as stupid, but, people that seem quite logical as well. They point to studies which claim that all the stereotypes about straight people and gay people are correct. That straight equals being a gender conforming god and gays being gender queer and atypical aberrations from the norm in ways other than their sexual desires. 

However, is it really true that Gaydar exists and is it also true that straight people never are gender-non conforming? Oh and does a difference in your ring finger really tell you anything about your orientation? Most people will point to studies mainly by the people associated with Michael J. Bailey and his studies. However, how correct are these studies? Are they consensus building? Are they even scientific or are they quackery? Looking at the Meta-Analyses of the data shows serious holes in the idea that Gaydar is a consistently true phenomenon. 

Moreover it shows some serious flaws in the idea of what is manly for men as well. Especially when it comes to activities like dancing. If you look at the studies gay men played game show and performance more than straight boys did as children.. However, there is a serious flaw in all these studies. No straight people are even given a chance to take part in the research. Of course you will have a majority of gay boys and lesbian girls being sissies and tomboys. There is no control sample of straight people or even just mostly straight people in these studies to see how many of them have videos of non-conforming home movies. 

If you saw my Moms old photos of me back at her place one of them is me in a very flamboyant coat that has a color in it a mix between purple and pink. Yet, I am straight I am not gay. I both danced when I was younger, was in a play "Twelve Dancing Princesses," and played with guns too. I was the 1 of only 3 boys in a play and was also playing Chris Bond with my toy gun at the same time. As long as there is no control group in any of these studies I call unscientific BS on them all. I call them quackery and Michael J. Bailey is himself in denial about the existence of sexual fluidity. He did not even acknowledge male bisexuality exists and still denies it is prevalent to this day in the male sex.

If Michael J. Bailey is not a good source and even denies evidence he does not like where can we look outside his inner circle for information on the markers of being gay? Is there any studies on Gaydar related traits that is not by Bailey and what do they show? Well, they show that most people in our species that are men do have a conformism and so do women. However, it also shows much more importantly the demographics of actual non-conforming people no matter how small the number. The top tier of people whom had gender non-conforming childhoods are in fact heterosexual as adults. 

Not mostly heterosexual, but, self-identified complete Kinsey 0 heterosexuals are the most to have had moments of various levels of non-conformism in life. This was according to a wonderful study done outside of Bailey's narrative back in 2012. However, there are other ideas out there trying to tell people certain factors tell you what orientation you are. That being your ring to index finger ratio with the length of your ring finger being longer meaning you are more likely straight than not as a man. While supposedly gay men have digits similar to women not straight men. Yet, in meta-analyses shows there is not enough evidence to show any sort of connection. 

I think the meta-analyses of non-conformity makes perfect sense. As meta-analyses of orientation identification overtime shows heterosexuality as being the most stable and the most likely to be where people with any sort of same sex play to end up. The two most taken up identities are either mostly straight or completely straight for most men and women by the time they are in their 30's and going into their 40's. This is shown in the studies that took a scientific and objective eye on human sexual orientation. Every single Longitude based tracing of populations done since around 2002ish shows a bisexual or a just curious at one time direction. Lisa Diamond a very out and proud Lesbian Psychologist for the APA cites this among other things in her research which shows a lack of any real evidence for the biological determinism or existentialist etiology for bisexual or homosexual attractions. 

So, it would make sense that most men and women irregardless of behavior or interests to be not gay and to be at least some variant of heterosexual. Only 2-3% of any human population is steadily gay or homosexual over their entire life without change to at least at bisexual identity. People with non-conformism with actual Gender Dysphoria (Transsexualism) is less than even 1% of the population. Most people whom have at some point gone through non-conformism or continue to be non-conforming are Gender Concordant and heterosexual. There is no reason to assume someone is gay just because they act a certain way, talk a certain way or have certain interests. 

Gaydar is a false pattern which does not help when dealing with people as individuals and not collectives. You should never collectivize all people with certain traits together into one mind. Individualism is the answer and to think first about if someone is a good person and treat them by their character. Do not prejudge about people before getting to know them. Gaydar is collectivism and it should be shoved off as the Pseudio-science it is for it is quackery at its finest. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/07/25/2d4d-ratio-masculinity/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/23/news/la-heb-gender-identity-kids-20120223

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/02/15/peds.2011-1804

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2012/02/15/peds.2011-1804.full.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289524/

http://www.adhdld.com/pdfs/Grimbos_et_al2010.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-005-3122-x

http://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=scholarship
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2969161_code835085.pdf?abstractid=2965179&mirid=1

Learning to be happy again

Thanksgiving Thanks and self-forgiveness going into my Birthday.

In 20 days from now I will be turning 31 and getting 1 year older in this life. I was born on October 28th, 1986 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada to an amazing Mother and Father. My Mom is still in my life, but, my Dad stopped being in it regularly once I turned 19 and moved out of my Mom's house. Since that time I have seen my Dad less and less to the point now where I do not even know if he is alive or dead. I still see my Mom regularly though and it means a lot to me since she has cancer. Sometimes I do wonder what Dad is doing though and where he is. 

He had been in my life for most of it up until that point and unlike some people whom had absent Fathers when they were young I never had such issues. I watched many a movie with my Father growing up on his Saturday nights over. I had him make me lunch on a regular basis when I was in school. There were times as I grew up I did get to see him less though. Specifically of note is around my 18th year and my last year of High School. There were Saturdays where he was not able to see me due to his work schedule.

Many people will think of numerous things to be thankful of this day. I am thankful that I am alive and not dead. I am thankful that Mom is alive and not succumbed to her cancer. I am thankful for having had an amazing Dad whom is somewhere out there as I type. I am thankful for the wood under my feet as I sit here in my home office. I am thankful for not living at a time when I would have been set on fire at the stake. I am thankful for being an Atheist and having a close, personal relationship with reality. I am thankful for having self-control and responsibility. I am thankful for being me. 

I need to quit being hard on myself for not being the perfect man. I will never be perfect and I will make mistakes. I need to relearn that I am not less than due to not being some ideal. An ideal I hold myself in my head that is just too perfect. I tend to have this issue of worrying that I am not good enough even when I am. I need to remember that I am only human and that my experiences all of them are all just part of the human experience on this planet. 

I am thankful for a family that loves me no matter what. I am thankful for what friends I do have left in my life. I am thankful for the air I breath and the water I have to drink. I am thankful for having two functional legs and aided functioning eyes. I am thankful for having a roof over my head and walls around me. I am thankful for having a working heart and functioning liver. I am thankful for having a heart of gold and maybe too gold at times. I am thankful for being a victor and not a victim of my past. I am thankful for being able to do all that I do. 

As I grow closer to 31 I am thankful I reached this point in my life. I am thankful for modern medicine and the Tylenol in my kitchen drawer. I am thankful for wonderful literature and art. I am thankful for being able to wake up each day to another day gone. I am thankful for sitting in this seat with a functioning human body. I am thankful ultimately to just exist. Cause I am useful, I am worth something and I am good enough. Existence is better because I am in it. Thanks to life.    

Thomas Smith proclaims the absence of free will and shows his ignorance of Scientific materialism

So, tonight I watched the video from the recent Skeptics community called "Mythicist Milwaukee." One of the events was a debate between Sargon of Akkad and a man by the name of Thomas Smith. He was a collectivist pure and simple with no hint of individualism in his bones. However, this made much more sense once he let his metaphysics show. When he proclaimed all the atheists in the room denied the existence of free will. Using the words "are we not all materialists here.. people are genetics and environment nothing more." Such a seriously scientifically inaccurate view is shocking.

Stating the obvious that genetics and environment play a part in what helps make you whom you are does not equal there being no free will. It says we have limits given to us by nature of our species it does not say we have no free will. All it says is that free will is not absolute and there are limits between the various factors that help shape our internal workings. It does not mean we have no free will at all. We do have free will there have been many studies into the phenomenon. None of them say there is no free will it only means there are limits to it. That we are not able to be gods among other humans.

However, there are some big named atheists whom have said there is no free will in the past. That does not mean Sam Harris and people with his views are correct. When in fact they are not correct at all and Daniel Dennet known as one of the 4 Horsemen of Atheism is one of its biggest defenders. Sam Harris has gone so far to as deny that the self even exists and this is literally insane. It is also dangerous as Daniel Dennet has also pointed out before. As have many people whom are both atheistic and not-so atheistic, but, are skeptical secular humanists. About how believing there is no free will leads to not taking any responsibility. It also leads to people being able to be easily manipulated. For if you have no self than what defense do you have against other peoples insanity?

Thomas rebuked the idea that free will existed by stating we had to have a Soul for their to be free will and all the people intending was scientific materialists, so, where does free will come from. However, scientific materialism only says everything is material and there is no non-material immortal Soul. That we are biological animals and that is all which is true. However, it does not say what that material does or does not do when it is activated and working. It means that equipment is material, natural and not supernatural, immortal or otherworldly. No one whom is not religious and yet still accepts freewill says it is a supernatural thing. Quite the contrary both scientific materialism and the existence of free will is true.

Our free will does not work in the way many probably do think, but, it does exist. We can always pick to act on impulses or not, we have the wiring for being able to either act or not. We might not be able to control everything in our mind/brain and no one thinks we do. However, we do have a certain amount of control and self-control. Self-control is the evidence of free will as free will is self-control. It is the ability to have some certain sense of control over ourselves and from that to take personal responsibilities in life. Free will does exist, it is not as absolute as say the Religious want to believe, but, it is real and concrete. In fact, it is a good thing most people understand the truth in free will because the world would be very chaotic without it.