What's Fair is Not Necessarily What is Equal

A female friend of mine, whom had been visiting from out of town, was chatting with me about how generous it was for her host to forego sleeping in his own bed so that she could make use of it while in town.  She reflected that she probably wouldn't do the same were the situations reversed and I observed that it was fine because what is "fair" isn't necessarily what is equal.

By using the word "fair", I am using a word that really isn't fully fitting the situation but it illustrates by analogy fairly well.  I meant to say that I could see his valid reasons for doing so:  that it was a means of expressing appreciation, esteem, and regard for her comfort as a magnanimous host.  (i.e. probably not an ugly sacrifice)

Representing here only the male view, one of the ways that we respond to value in females (even if we're just friends) is by acts that I would more-or-less classify under the umbrella of "chivalry".  That term has a lot of historical baggage involving people wearing metal suits but if we can discard the duty notions for a moment, and just focus on the essentials of the acts, I think it solidify my discussion.

So what are some modern examples:  Opening and holding doors.  Offering a lady your arm while you walk.  Pulling a chair out for your partner to be seated.  And the one we've listed above.  What are the essentials here?  They all involve physically reducing effort, exposure, or danger on the part of the chival-ree and, ultimately, are acts which express esteem by means of contributing to an increase in safety and comfort for the lady.

And it doesn't work with the genders reversed.  Not sure I want to get into that, but I'll simply state here without any supporting documentation that you'd gut masculinity if it were reversed, barring any special medical conditions.  I don't as much cover the other end here, but women have their things they do which men feel special too that are particularly charming in feminine ways.

I think this is awesome.  It's completely unequal and yet completely sensible.  It is a way to express your gender identity along with your moral identity if you do it right (i.e. not out of a sense of duty but rather as a generous response to value).  I think it speaks well for us that, as an American society, some of us are still down with this and can still see and act upon the beauty in our gender differences.  To the ladies in particular, thanks for being good receivers of our good will.

Human Nature... or not?

People talk a lot about "human nature" when they see people being lazy or stupid or just making the wrong decisions.

It is a key part of my personal mission in life to point out that the same people, who have the lazy impulses and want to make the wrong decisions, also overcome those at times to do amazing things.

( Photo Credit: Mike Mertz )

Never Bring a Gun to a Banana Fight

I've noticed a pattern of behavior in people on Facebook where they will read something that they disagree with and lob a hand-grenade into the comments section.  They have nothing constructive to add but they want to indicate their disagreement with some of the following characteristics:

• The comment disagrees with the essence of some post - no problem with this...
• The comment is generally disrespectful of anyone who would agree with the post and is a smear or insult toward supporters of the post (see also: Argument from Intimidation)
• The comment provides no real substantiation for the position of the commenter.  No facts, no logic.  It is generally devoid of content.  This last is important.
• When faced with a reply that contains argumentation, the commenter enjoys the implied legitimization of his position by the defensiveness of repliers.  Meanwhile he can pick a strawman out of your argument and focus on that.  

We usually call these people "trolls".  And we do ourselves no service my taking their nonsense seriously.  Here's how I suggest we deal with it.  

Go Meta and Call It What It Is

I don't spend a lot of time on this one.  My recent response to an obvious hand-grenade was "I sense a boring troll."  Incidentally, my reply was more a warning to people who would reply than a slight toward the detractor, though it does serve as both.

Don't take it seriously.  

The detractor has provided nothing but nonsense.  Reply with nonsense.  Again, don't spend time crafting argumentation here.  The more absurd the better.  If you're not laughing when you're typing your response, you're not letting go enough.

For Fuck's Sake, Don't Argue It Seriously

This is my big takeaway... never provide deeper argumentation than the detractor brought to the table.  If he spouts a nonsense opinion, don't come back with a treatise.  Don't give troll the opportunity to be taken seriously or to pick strawmen out of your hastily written argumentation.  FB comments are a poor place to have a real discussion anyway.

The Summary: Never bring a gun to a banana fight.

Look.  Objectivists... We love our ideas. They make us who we are more than anything else. We've spent a lot of time curating them and we want to express who we are. That's great! But keep perspective. If someone believes differently and they want to be disrespectful about it, that's a reflection of their insecurity.  

What we need to be is relaxed and groovy, not only about our own positions, but about taking down bollocks on the internet.  Fight serious with serious.  Laugh at and ridicule absurdity.  But know the difference between a real argument and a hand-grenade.

Random Thought: Clever Response to Panhandler

I hold a low opinion of friends that only come to me when they need something from me.  Can you imagine what is my opinion of you?

Intellectual Activism in the Gamer World

I am involved in an exchange with the writer and senior editor of Top Tier Tactics in response to his article, "Gamers need to keep giving back, and not just to Child’s Play":

WiNG,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.  This is an important discussion and I thank you for taking my response seriously.  I'd like to take up the major point of your reply in the form of a hypothetical: 

Are you suggesting that any time a child anywhere in the world starves to death, you bear the responsibility for it unless you give some money (or time) to some kind of charity?  That no matter what else you do in your life, you are guilty if you do not "give something back"?  This is the main question I will explore.

Here's a counter hypothetical for contrast.  Consider a person like Steve Jobs.  He probably put himself through some amount of school to learn.  He probably spent a lot of time dickering around with electronic things that didn't help any homeless people.  He probably saved every cent that he made, diverting none of it to charity, to start his own business out of his garage.  And in the process of pursuing his dreams about gadgets made products of uncompromising integrity and vision, employing thousands of people who are able to be productive and creative and live lives of purpose.  Is he to be considered a worthless human being if a child anywhere in the world dies of hunger?  No. 

Charity is a personal choice - not a personal responsibility.  We are responsible for our choices, but only to ourselves and what those choices mean for our lives and our goals.  We are always responsible for our actions and the contents of our character.  No one else can do that for you.   

Charity is not an unqualified good.  An easy counter example is the act of giving money to an alcoholic.  In that case, you are merely enabling his self-destructive behavior.  If you send money to help a person living in a dictatorship, your help will only be siphoned off to enrich the dictator.
Whatever the case, you can't just act blindly and promiscuously because you believe your intentions are noble.  Outcomes matter.  And the reasons why poverty exist matter.  And it doesn't come down to people not giving enough away for nothing in return.   

The poor in the world are poor because they lack liberty - because they lack any kind of protection of their individual rights.  And much as I might feel for their plight, there is little I can do to help them unless they already have the right ideas on the ethical principles on which to structure society to enable their flourishing as living beings.  Those people, empowered by a rational ethical ideology, might be able to stage a revolt and make the next America as our founding fathers did here. 

I don't feel bad for saying that I'm too busy fighting for the right kind of ideas here in America to preserve our liberty, which is eroding year over year, to be concerned about the poor in Manila.  And the core of what is eating away at our premises of liberty is Altruism.  The idea that man has no right to live for himself.  That self-sacrifice to others is his moral purpose and the basis of all virtue. 

Under Altruism, what right does Steve Jobs have to keep pursuing Apple corporation and NeXT and Pixar?  The capital invested there would be much better if it went to the people with the greatest need, right?  Investing in hokey pokey technologies to make interfaces and images prettier seems like a petty concern compared to a child who is starving to death.  His investment capital would have been sacrificed and we would never have experienced the good things that Apple has brought to the world. 

We thrive in this country because our founding principles aim to leave us free from arbitrary force.  Each man has a right to his life and to pursue his happiness.  That's in the Declaration of Independence and it stands in the face of Altruism, which says the opposite.  It doesn't mean that you'll never help other people, but it doesn't make it virtuous or important either.   

The less we recognize and acknowledge the importance and the goodness of individuals using their independent judgment to act on goals of their choosing and not feeling bad if they make a profit while doing so, the poorer we all will be.  Those profits may be reinvested into productive efforts, or spent on rest on relaxation so that the creativity  and productiveness can continue.  In any case, those profits are noble and good.  The vision of what you want to do with your life and bring into the world and trade with others comes first. 

WiNG: If you've read this far, I thank you for your patience and interest.  I come back to your blog because you have found a very good niche that I hope that you continue to explore and refine and make into what it ought to be.  I consider gaming to be one of *my* chosen forms of rest and relaxation which serves to recharge me for my productive activities and I am glad for your previous postings.  This one just seems like a horribly indulgent and digression and one which compromises *your* vision.

My Formula for Starting and Keeping an Exercise Routine

Start small.  Be consistent. Same time every day. No exceptions.

Exercise for at least some completely do-able minimum number of minutes of your choosing. Make the number of minutes so small you have no excuse not to: 15 minutes.

Or... Work out until you run completely out of breath three times.  This means you are so winded you have to take a break to continue.

Will power? You don't need it. There's nothing to fight through here if you remove the hurdles.  Make a consistent schedule and make it small and manageable.  Then you can do anything.

Photo by Vermin87 on Flickr

The Sermon on the Mount vs. America

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend doesn't disagree with the Sermon on the Mount.  I think we can agree on this.  She made it abundantly clear in her article, "Ayn Rand vs. America", which was published on the website of the Atlantic on 8/23/2011.  So it's not surprising to me that she disagreed with the views of Onkar Ghate that the government should not be permitted to interfere with economic activities.


And, she seems to consider it essential to her conception of America that there is a "preeminence of faith in the American consciousness."  If you  take a survey of people to find out what kind of morals they hold, this is more or less true.  The religious people are altruists and the non-religious people will not challenge the ideas of the Sermon on the Mount.  


There is an important debate to be made here and a question which must be asked:  What is the core ethic that has made America free and prosperous?  Was it Sermon on the Mount as Townsend suggests? She sums it up as, "We can only be free when we work together for the well-being of all Americans--including the least among us".  


It is my deeply held conviction that it was not.  Contrary to what a statistical poll on the beliefs of Americans would suggest, the Declaration of Independence contains the core ethic of the United States of America.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This is nearly as opposite to the views of the Sermon on the Mount as you can get.  It holds that there is a right to *pursue* happiness.  This is not a right *to* happiness and recognizes that we must achieve it by our own actions.  To pursue happiness is to engage in industry, and that is to be secured by government.  Industry,  when applied to an individual person is defined simply as "systematic work or labor".  If we re-arrange the words, we arrive at this: The purpose of the government, is to protect the liberty of people to engage in their systematic work for the pursuit of their lives and happiness.


So was Ayn Rand against America?  Or was she more faithful to the principles that made the United States of America more free and more prosperous than any regulator or welfare statist who operates on the ethical premise of altruism?  The answer to the question requires a lot of diligent research, and an open enough mind that you can set aside your emotions long enough to hear what she actually had to say.


People say that Ayn Rand misunderstood the nature of life as a human being.  I don't think I understood it at all until I read her words on the matter.  In a nutshell, she argues:  Life requires self-interested action, action requires thought and rationality, thought is an individual process.  Nothing I can disagree with there.  For more details, see her essay, "The Objectivist Ethics".


Going into the social sphere, where men interact with other men, she defined and wrote voluminously on the topic of individual rights.  Similarly here, I feel more American with an understanding of these ideas.  In a nutshell, she argues: Man needs to be free to exercise the rational use of his faculty of reason, a right is a freedom to action, force compels a man to act against his judgment, the role of government is to prevent the initiation of force by individuals against other individuals, i.e. to protect individual rights. For more details, see her essay, "Man's Rights".


Her words are all there, and largely available for free, to anyone who might wish to assess for themselves which set of ideas are at the core of why America works as a country and prospers.  Why we are free.  Why we need freedom in the first place.  Is it freedom if the government can use force against you and deprive you of property when you haven't violated anyone else's rights?


Here is my challenge to anyone who thinks Ayn Rand is unamerican in her ideas: Read the Declaration of Independence again.  Decide for yourself what is more American:  The Sermon on the Mount or Ayn Rand.

Ends and Means

I had an exchange with a friend about what types of action are moral in war which became awkward when he disagreed with me about the morality of Sherman's march to the sea and the tactics that were used.  And the culmination of this disagreement came as a challenge to me in the form of "...so do you believe the ends justify the means?".

I think this statement is problematic.  It's a discussion ender.  It is a form of Argument from Intimidation.  e.g. "only a completely immoral person could think that the ends justify the means".  But also problematic is that the statement implies more than it actually contains.  I think what it really means to say is that "do you believe that this particular end justifies any means", which is another way of asking whether a particular end gives you a moral blank check.  I do not believe moral blank checks exist in reality.

I doubt that either of us would disagree with that point.  In order to have a rational discussion about this topic, you would have to be very clear about which ends and which means you were referring to.  For instance:

• In war, when you are fighting for your survival vs. some state aggressor.
• The End is to achieve unconditional surrender and cessation of hostilities   
• You may have to kill some civilians but this would not be indiscriminate.
• Indiscriminate killing would be immoral.
• Using rape, such as in Africa, is the type of thing that would be off limits.

I wish I had made my points that well during the discussion but it was on the fly and not as clear.  In fairness, the conversation did close with an acknowledgment on the part of my friend that the principal difference in our positions was that I did not consider civilians of an aggressor state to be "innocent".  Which is correct.

The exchange still rubbed me the wrong way though.  What I disliked about it... what I felt was being perpetrated was a sense that if you can be painted with the "ends justifying the means" brush, that you are automatically wrong.  And I tend to think that whenever that dynamic is present, that there is likely to be a fallacy involved.  It felt like an aggressive ultimatum and such a thing doesn't belong in a conversation among friends.

Letter to Congressman Wolf - Regarding HR2417

Photo by thomasbrightbill

Please vote for H.R. 2417 to repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs. The bill does not go nearly far enough in removing onerous regulation but it is a step in the right direction: The government's role should be limited to the protection of rights so that each individual is free to produce and trade.

How to Order a Cappuccino at Starbucks

Photo by (e)Spry

"Doppio Machiatto, Wet" -- this is what you can ask for if you want a cappuccino similar to what you can get anywhere in Italy for about €1.50.  Ask for a cappuccino and you're likely to get a drink that is too big, with too much milk, and costs too much.

Utter Balderdash on Self-Interest and It's Antidote: Long Range Rational Thought

This may be lost on someone whose mind bristles the moment they hear the word "selfish" but for those of you whose minds are still open for business I would like you to take away one thing:  There is no such thing as short-term self-interest.  There is long-term self-interest and there is self-destruction.

The concept of self-interest is a complex topic and it is easy to make mistakes about its nature and the consequences of choosing to be guided by it.  But the ruling principle here is that you cannot call a short-term gain that destroys all of your values and any possibility of long-term success "self-interested".  That is something that you would call self-destructive.

I was inspired to take up this topic by one of the many horrible articles attacking politicians such as Paul Ryan for making public statements that they are inspired and influenced by Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged.  Critics of Ayn Rand, in general, have a difficult time with the idea that a self-interested person could be anything other than a deceitful crook and that Altruism is the only way to be a good person.

If you were to agree with the premise of one such article's claims, you might consider the following claims to be valid:

• If a person presents himself as having no self-interest, or that he suppresses it in favor of putting the interests of others first, he can be trusted.  
• If a person claims that he believes that each person should be guided first and foremost by his self-interest, he has given himself "a blank check to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, manipulate, backstab and betray".
  (though I provide a link here in the name of being complete, I do not recommend following it because they have a ridiculous paywall and it takes a while to get to the content)

Let's consider the first example for a moment.  This is just about every statesman.  They claim to be honest and trustworthy and to be looking out for someone's interests other than their own.  A number of them are honest at least some of the time.  A number of them are dishonest at least some of the time.  The mere fact that they present themselves as not putting their own interests first has no bearing on whether they turn out to be honest or not and is, therefore, no reason to trust them.

Consider a similar example.  You're moving into an inner city apartment and a stranger you don't know who has a friendly demeanor offers to keep an eye on your truck of belongings as you move items in.  Should you trust him to do so?  I wouldn't.  And neither would I trust the statesman who claims no self-interest to watch my camera bag while I go to the bathroom.  I don't know them.

Which brings us to the second guy in my list of claims above - the one who does claim that self-interest has a central role in each man's life.  You could say about this man that he is at least up front about this fact.  It's at least partly true for both men because they are both human, and as such need to act for their own survival.  What you can't say about him for certain is that you can trust him or that he will never be worthy of your trust.  The anti-Rand articles claim the latter, in loud and un-intellectual language.

The correct disposition to take in both cases is to withhold judgment on trustworthiness because one does not trust people based on who they say they are, but rather based on who they demonstrate that they are by their actions.  To trust a person with all of your earthly belongings based solely on their claims or on a gut feeling is to take them on faith, which we have no reason to do.  We need to see their actions to know who they are, no matter what they claim about themselves or the nature of man.

The question of whether a person who claims to be motivated by self-interest is ultimately trustworthy depends on the range of the person's thinking and action.  The better the mind, the longer the range.

If a person thinks and acts on the short-range, then you can trust that they will make all sorts of bad decisions perhaps including to lie, cheat, steal, and/or defraud others.  Such actions could not be said to be in a person's self-interest because the outcome is bad for the person.  Even if he/she gets away with fraud, he still has to manufacture and maintain a fake reality for others, if only to stay out of jail.  When the entire thing comes crashing down, as it usually does, he is left ill-equipped to deal with reality honestly because he is too practiced in living in a fake one.  This is self-destruction.

If a person thinks and acts on the long range, he will have to be honest first and foremost to himself about facts of reality in order to be determine what course of action is in his best interest over the full range of his life.  In his dealings with others, he would know that people can see a pattern in his behavior and are not likely to deal with him again if they know that he is the sort of person who is willing to lie, cheat, steal and defraud. He would also be able to guess that people can warn other people off.  This person has the capacity to deal with people honestly because he deals with his life honestly and doesn't knowingly sacrifice long-term thriving to short-run gains.

Long-term self-interest is the only kind of bona-fide self-interest.  Thinking and acting on the short range is self-destruction whether it is masked by a veneer of self-interest or not.

Giving Too Much Credit to W

I have noticed some people posting a "motivational poster" of George W Bush entitled, "Vindication".

The people who repost this seem to be more interested with pointing out that Obama's policies have been wrong and Bush's were effective.  But I take the long view on whether our foreign interests as a nation have been served by either of these presidents, and I do not see any cause for celebration when I look at the policies of W.

Much as I prefer Osama Bin Laden dead, neither Obama nor his predecessor have made significant progress to end the War on Terror. And the main reason they can't is because the War on Terror is an anti-concept devised to evade the fact that it is Islam's most consistent exponents which have declared war on the USA and both of them refuse to identify this fact.

Playing terrorist whack-a-mole is not going to end the threat because it doesn't address the fundamental sources of the threat: people willing to fully carry out Islamic ideologies, the people funding teaching and revolutionary action out of Iran and Saudi Arabia -- both, countries whose wealth is funded by oil money, which comes from facilities which were nationalized (i.e. taken by force) from western states in the 1950s.

Unless you objectively identify the nature of your enemy and understand the ideology that makes them possible, you cannot effectively fight a war against anyone. And unless you fight wars with your goal as unconditional surrender of the people fueling and funding the enemy's ideological center, and putting the lives of US soldiers above enemy civilians, you cannot achieve Victory.

Bush started by waging war and ended by nationbuilding because of his "compassionate conservative" ethos. He is a miserable failure as far as US self-interest is concerned. I am forced to despise Bush because he sacrificed american lives to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which have consititutions which contain terms that they may not contradict beliefs and tenets of Islam.  In essence, Bush has done more to empower and embolden the ideas which seek to destroy and/or subvert the USA.

(Obama has never stood for any such concept as US self-interest. He has been and ever shall be a self-slap-in-the-face as far as the USA is concerned by going around the world and apologizing for our virtues.  I do not feel a need to take up his behavior - Democrats have never agreed with American fundamental principles of Individual Rights)

For those who wish to understand the philosophical causes of our current situation and discussions of possible solutions, I will direct you to a book entitled, Winning the Unwinnable War by Elan Journo.  It covers the matter in detail.

Analysis of a Euphemism: Good Friday

Today is called Good Friday, on which day some people celebrate a man's death. I, however, can only see moral perversion when I look closely.

In their morality, you are born guilty.  Before you even take your first breath, their ethos considers you sinful.  This is for some action that someone else supposedly took before you ever existed.

Later in time, a man is executed brutally and this somehow opens the door for you to be relieved of this guilt you did not earn.

Let's recap so far.  You're guilty not because of your action.  And you can earn forgiveness, also not through your own action.  But there is a catch.  All you have to do is believe something that you have no reason on earth to believe.  And the reason they want you to believe it is because you have no reason to.  (Which for some reason brings this clip from Star Trek TNG to mind.)

And then, after establishing that your actions have no relation to your moral status, they have the impudence to tell you that in order to be good, you have to conduct yourself in a certain way.  That morality is tied to your action after all.

...

You know what this makes me what to do?  It makes me want to tell them where they can shove their stupid little ideas.  And what body parts of mine they can heap affection onto.

Death Worship

While I am empathetic to people who have suffered a genuine loss of a loved one, I don't see the point of celebrating the acts of a crazed gunman every year by those whom have not. I have noticed a trend of increased death and tragedy worship in American culture and I have to say that I think it is wrong. I think your life must be truly aimless and meaningless if you need the gravity of someone else's death to spur you to find meaning in your own life.

Copper and the Kitchen Stepstool

Pondering the essence of being emotionally empowered

Pondering the essence of being emotionally empowered: The ability to acknowledge a present strong emotional state and neither judge oneself, nor react blindly. But instead to follow by refocusing one's attention on the facts at hand in order to understand the cause, the form, and the validity of the emotional state. And then to determine what actions are possible and how one will proceed to act.

"Everything happens for a reason"

Keeper:
When something horrible occurs, many reply that it is all part of god's plan and we must be have faith for his long-term intentions for our well-being. "Everything happens for a reason". Here is my reply.

--

If we're talking about Japan, all of the "reasons" which can be rationally proven are geological. There is no metaphysical message to be taken from such an event. There is only the question of what one can do to mitigate or eliminate its risks. E.g. Polio is killing and disabling people -- solution: study the disease and invent a vaccine. This requires science and technology. It requires reason -- human reason.

When we reach into a grab bag of make-believe and superstition (religion), the human faculty of reason is no longer what we are talking about and no longer applies. As comes to faith, it always requires that reason must take a back seat. Why? Reason's fundamental requirement is evidence: that is, facts connected necessarily to an inference by logical integration.

When you discard either facts or logic, you've pretty much given up on trying to understand "reasons" for the crisis, probably because you've given up on reason.

Taxonomy of Theism

 - Theist: Believes in god in spite of lack of proper evidence and/or logical integration.  Tries to form his ethics according to some moral guidelines on this basis or experiences guilt over his non-compliance.

 - Atheist: Doesn't believe in god.  Doesn't claim he can prove god doesn't exist, instead he dismisses such a claim as he does with any arbitrary claim.  Doesn't form his ethics as if there is a god in spite of it.

 - Agnostic: the transvestite/hemaphrodite of theism.  Can't quite bring himself to believe that god exists but is unwilling to say that this makes him an atheist, which term he wishes not to be associated with.  May form his ethics partly or fully with the same fundamentals as the theist.

Atheism as Non-theism

My friend Greggystills writes at his blog:

"As I understand it, strong atheism is the claim that there exists no god.  For such a claim to be true requires either complete knowledge of all that exists, or a really lucky guess."

He is on to something.  You cannot prove a negative assertion on existence because it requires omniscience.

I have a thought in response. And it is about the nature of certainty.  When you come to know something, it is always based on and abstracted/inferred from perceptual evidence.  You see and hear things interacting and you try to find explanations for the phenomena that you encounter.  And when you see things happening always C when A and B interact, then you form theories about the nature of that interaction and about the entities A and B.

Certainty can only arise from evidence provided by your senses when you are engaged in non-contradictory identification.

But what if you have no evidence at all, perceptual or otherwise?  I have no evidence that Martians will invade Herndon.  I don't believe that Martians exist.  Why?  No reason to.  No evidence, direct or inferred.

I don't believe in a god.  Why?  No reason to.  The label for this concept is "a-theist".  A "theist" is defined by Princeton Wordweb as "One who believes in the existence of a god or gods".  What then does it mean to be athiest?  It means that you are one who doesn't believe in the existence of a god, or more specifically, that you fail to meet the criteria of being a theist (in the full affirmative).

Accepting the label of athiest (properly understood) doesn't mean that you hold a belief that is not proved.  It means the opposite: that you refuse to hold a particular belief that is not proved.  And if you are a rational person, you will always consider new evidence presented by your senses and processed by your faculty of reason.

Non-existence doesn't have to be proved.  Arbitrary claims have no cognitive standing and the burden of proof always rests on the one whom asserts in the positive.  If you recognize this, then you understand that atheism is a term which shouldn't have to exist, in the way that a-martianism doesn't exist.

You'll note by the way that my definition for atheism does not include a moral component.  It says nothing about what you actually believe and which ideas you consider important.  This is the other thing that I believe Greggystills was standing against.

In common use, the term "atheism" is colored with baggage.  In the least, people consider atheists immoral.  At worst, evil.  Regardless, people somehow think they know a thing or two about you if they can paint you with the label "atheist".  But they misunderstand the term and so they misunderstand the consequences. Just as believing in God doesn't automatically make people engage in behavior you might call good, the opposite belief doesn't automatically result in what you might call bad.

There is no evidence on which to associate atheists with a specific moral code or the total absence thereof.

Notes About Copper - For Shelly

Copper - aka "The Buddy"

So I got this new kitty on new years eve and his name is Copper and he's a Bengal.  If you're friends with me on BOOKFACE then you know that I've been posting a lot of pictures.  Well I'm glad to hear that I'm inspiring some interest in Bengal cats because I can't seem to stop photographing him when he's being cute.

Shelly asks...

...how much are you loving your kitty? I think I'm getting ready to get a new kitten and I'm lovin the bengals. Do you have any "heads up" for me? Copper is beautiful. How old is he? How hard are they to train? Does he get up on your counters?

So here is my FAQ on Copper and since I don't know how representative he is of Bengal cats, let's just say this is more about him then about Bengals.

--

How old is he?

• He was two when I adopted him.  I got him fixed shortly after so he was neutered as an adult and is still going through his changes.  I am significantly less allergic to him than when I first got him though.

Does he get up on my counters?

• Just about every moment that he can.  And he can open drawers and cabinet doors.  He's also been on top of my fridge and on top of the roofline of the cabinets.
• I've given up trying to keep him off at this point.  He doesn't mind water for the most part.  Doesn't like loud noises but that doesn't make for much when you're trying to keep him off your counters.

What do I love about him?

• He's got a very strong personality.  Just look at his face.  He's got this whole... I'm a punk thing going and it's kind of awesome.  
• He *is* indeed Gorgeous.  The pics don't lie.  I think he's probably the best looking cat I've ever had.  His coat has this rich metallic brown under-layer.  Very stunning under bright lights (and on the red carpet)
• He's very playful and kitten like and loves little catnip mice ($2.50 for a 3-pack at Target - yay!).  When he's playing with those he charges all around the apartment.  We play together.  I throw the mouse, he pounces and goes crazy.  It's like a one-sided game of fetch.
• He really likes shrimp and chicken.  I can give him "treats" directly from my hand and he's very gentle about taking them.  
• However, while you're eating your food he will get up and try to sniff it... repeatedly.  And I'm sure that moves to eating it if you let him go far enough.  
• Kate W on Bookface remarked: "Be careful, though. Bengals are feisty. Not just run-around-the-house feisty. More like claw-food-straight-out-of-your-hand feisty."  Almost true but we're only at sniffing so far.
• He does generally want to be with you.  He's very interactive with a strong, curious, and playful personality.

Is he a lap kitty?

• Rarely.  When I am home, he seems to wander a lot, talking to the walls.  He takes a long time to settle in and does so better when I'm in front of the TV rather that at the computer.  Too bad for him I compute more.

What is difficult about him?

• Keeping him off the counters.
• He really kind of doesn't shut up.
• Trimming his nails can be tricky.  He hates it.  Has actually tried to claw me in the face once or twice over nail trims.  Still figuring it out... but lately I have to get him purring and then do one or two nails at a time.
• He really doesn't respect the computer at all.  He is constantly between me and the monitor and occasionally types e-mails.

What has been easy?

• For the most part, he knows where to scratch.  The main place he scratches that is improper is on my office chair.  But I have yet to see any damage.  (In fact, he's standing on the back of the chair now, which is about an inch-and-a-half wide and not too stable)
• He was litter trained and knows where to go.  That said, he covers up thoroughly and tracks litter dust for quite a while afterward.