CalvinDude.com

1) The experience of pain is morally evil.
2) To go against moral evil is morally good.
3) Therefore, it is morally good to do that which will alleviate the experience of pain.

However…

4) Stubbing one’s toe on a coffee table inflicts pain on the individual.
5) Therefore, it is morally good to do that which will ensure no one can ever stub his or her toe on a table.

Unfortunately….

6) There are more ways to inflict pain than stubbing one’s toe on a table.
7) It is impossible to ensure that all external ways of inflicting pain are incapable of doing so.

However…

8) Dead things experience no pain.
9) It is inevitable that living things will experience pain.
10) Therefore, it is morally better to be dead than to be alive.

Unfortunately…

11) There are those who will not kill themselves.
12) Those who are alive will experience pain.
13) Since it is a moral good to alleviate the experience of pain, it is morally justifiable to kill every other living thing.

And finally…

14) If you do not act to resist evil, you are evil yourself.
15) Therefore, if you do not kill everyone you are evil but
16) If you do kill everyone you are good.

Thank God atheists aren’t consistent.

The truth behind the Global Warming scam shines forth yet again!

[California] Attorney General Jerry Brown on Tuesday said he will sue to block a proposed water-bottling operation in Northern California unless its effects on global warming are evaluated.

…

Brown said the company must put its revisions into a new contract with the town of McCloud. He wants proper study of the environmental consequences of the bottling operation, saying the previous draft review had “serious deficiencies.”

He said it failed to include an examination of whether the operation will contribute to global warming through the production of plastic bottles, the operation’s electrical demands and the diesel soot and greenhouse gas emissions produced by trucks traveling to and from the plant.

“It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States,” Brown said in a statement. “Nestle will face swift legal challenge if it does not fully evaluate the environmental impact of diverting millions of gallons of spring water from the McCloud River into billions of plastic water bottles.”

A blind man could have seen this one coming. The Global Warming scam is just a lawyer trick. Note that once the myth of fuel emissions causing Global Warming becomes legal precedence, every company on Earth will face the same lawsuits. You want to drink a Coke? Guess what! Those are bottled elsewhere and driven by a truck to your supermarket. And then you drive to the market to buy it. (And what do you do with the plastic bottle when you’re done? You, my friend, are part of the problem too!)

But don’t worry. After you’re sued out of your house, you can’t even live in a cave in the ground–who knows what pollutants you’ll be putting into the groundwater supply? And besides, you’re a threat to the brown bears that want to sleep in the same cave.

This article was sent to me recently and I was asked to provide my opinion of it. The article is written by Dr. Richard Parker, M.D. and it’s titled “A Physician Comments on Abortion and the Morning After Pill.” As might be expected, Parker’s position is pro-abortion. However, his philosophical failings become immediately apparent in the first paragraph. Parker states:

I was recently confronted in the Emergency Department with a situation I rarely encounter: a woman requesting “the morning after pill.” Since I practice in a largely conservative state, for a few minutes I introspectively debated whether I should provide her with such a prescription (italics mine).

The portion I emphasized above demonstrates Parker’s first problem. He is looking at this issue as a political issue. But while the issue has been used by politicians, determining the ethics of abortion has nothing to do with politics. Therefore, the fact that Parker lives in a “largely conservative state” ought to have exactly no bearing upon his actions from an ethical perspective. (It might be relevant if he was dealing with a legal issue; but since the so-called “Morning After Pill” is legal in the US, that’s a non-issue here.)

Secondly, Parker displays his ignorance of the rights of man when he writes:

The anti-abortionist position also fails to recognize that human beings are granted rights qua man’s status as a rational animal, not qua animal.

There are several problems with this. Let’s start with the fact that if we consistently hold to this, then we MUST say that those people who are “more rational” than others have more rights. That is, under this theory, an imbecile does not have the same human rights as a genius. In fact, the smarter one is the more rights a person must have.

Furthermore, it means that adults will by and large have more human rights than children, as most adults are far more rational than most children. As a result, our ethical conditioning to save children before adults in the case of fire, for instance, is not only wrong but evil. If an infant and his mother are caught in a burning building, the ethical choice for the firemen is to save the more rational of the two. Let the infant burn, rescue the mother. But this obviously goes against most of our common ethics (regardless of whether you hold to a Biblical world view).

Further, rationality must be measurable in order for it to have any meaningful usage in Parker’s dictum. But this presents a problem for Parker because whatever tests we use to determine rationality would have to occur when he is conscious. If Parker is asleep, we cannot test his rationality—he would score exactly the same as a non-rational rock! Therefore, if I kill him while he’s asleep I have not killed a rational human being at all under his definition. Therefore, if we are consistent with his ethic, no murder has occurred.

Finally, Parker’s claims about the rationality of the person are identical to the views of those who defined slaves as non-persons. Black slaves were considered less-rational than whites, and therefore whites could own them. If we take Parker’s position that rights come about based on something that is not linked to our humanity but instead to some other ontological feature, then human rights cease to be human rights and instead become whatever rights the ruling political class allows. In Parker’s case, human rights become rational rights. And as soon as we change rights in this manner we can begin to exclude whomever we deem unfit.

Additionally, I must point out that the Christian response to Parker is that human rights are not “granted” at all, but exist due to the fact that humans are created in the image of God.

Parker also tries to make a distinction between the actual and the possible. He writes:

In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity’s parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities.

Again, Parker treats human rights as if they can somehow be “granted.” But if they are granted that implies a grantor. What grants those rights to us? If he says it’s the law, then all that needs be done is that we modify the law. If the law grants rights, we can change the law to say, “People named Parker can be executed” and that would not be unethical. If it’s the consent of the people, we can still get enough people together to say, “People named Parker can be executed.” Is that not what every oppressive regime does? Hitler’s Germany decided Jews had no right to life, so they could be killed. How is this a violation of the rights of Jews unless the “grantor” of the right is something beyond either communal law or the consent of the governed?

Also note that Parker’s claim is that a fetus is potentially rational. (Again, this requires us to assent to his idea that rationality is what determines rights—something we’ve already shown above to be flawed.) This comes to fruition when we read:

Individual rights should not and cannot be granted to potentialities because they are metaphysically distinct from actualities. The potential and actual therefore have distinct moral and political implications.

Let us use his reasoning here. If human rights come about because of the humanity of the object, rather than Parker’s invention of “rationality” then we see that the fetus actually satisfies the requirements above at gaining “individual rights.” A fetus is a human being. This is a scientific fact. Human beings have human fetuses. Humans cannot have cat fetuses, humans cannot have walrus fetuses; humans have human fetuses. The fetus is human from conception, and this is scientifically undeniable. Therefore, if rights come about due to the humanity of the fetus rather than due to the rationality of the fetus, we have proven using Parker’s own methodology that the fetus actually has human rights because the fetus actually is human.

Parker then continues:

Another flaw with the anti-abortionist view is the failure to acknowledge the proper metaphysical relationship between mother and the unborn fetus. The fetus is physically within the mother and connected to her via the placenta and umbilical chord. It is directly physically dependent on the mother for all of its life sustaining needs-oxygen, energy and safety from the external environment. The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities, but rather that of an independent human being (the mother) with rights and a dependent physical appendage, something that is physically within and part of the mother and therefore cannot have individual rights.

Note that Parker is arguing that rights are not just dependent upon rationality (his original claim) but also upon the location of the individual and also the relationship of that individual to another individual. As I did before with his “rationality” argument, I want to examine the outcome of this thinking.

First of all, Parker is flat out wrong when he says “The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities” because scientifically, it is exactly that. The fetus is a distinct human being and the mother is a distinct human being. It is true that the fetus is dependent upon the mother, but dependency does not affect rights! If it did, parents ought to have the right to kill all their dependants. Infants cannot live on their own. They require nurture. Under Parker’s theory, it ought to remain moral to kill infants.

Furthermore, as a doctor I’m sure that Parker can think of several cases when a person is under anesthesia. That person is now completely dependant upon the doctors for his well-being. Is it morally justifiable for a physician to kill a patient under his care because the patient is now completely dependent upon the doctor? Of course not. A person does not lose his rights simply because he is dependent upon others for his well-being.

Likewise, Parker has determined that the location of a human being can determine whether or not that human being has rights. But what is the rational basis for that argument? This is an ad-hoc claim, completely unsupportable. How does the location of the fetus change the rights of the fetus? How could the fetus have no rights when, if he was moved just a few inches away, he would have full rights? How is such a thing justifiable ethically? Parker cannot simply assert that it is the case that the fetus has no rights based on location: he must prove this claim.
Parker continues:

Individual rights cannot be granted to the parts of human entities-to do so would make a surgeon a murderer when he removes a healthy kidney from a patient for an organ transplant, an internist a murderer when he poisons a tapeworm to achieve its removal from a patient’s intestine, a dermatologist a killer when he removes a mole from a patient’s face.

But of course a fetus is NOT a “part” of the mother. The fetus is a complete human being distinct from the mother. That is the point. If the fetus was a part of the mother, the fetus would remain a part of the mother after birth. Just as the removal of a kidney does not transform it into some other person, so removing a fetus would not transform the fetus into some other person. If Parker wants to play that game, he’s proven himself irrational…which means I can ethically kill him.

Parker continues:

The basis for individual rights lies in man’s nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will). The concept of individual rights can therefore only be properly understood in the context of a rational independent entity, not in the context of a living thing with rudimentary sensations.

We’ve already addressed this earlier, but note that nowhere does Parker actually argue for this. He merely asserts it as if it were true.

Finally, Parker says:

The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights.

Birth is a metaphysical act? Moving a few inches down the birth canal changes the metaphysical nature of a fetus?

If one thing is obvious, it’s that Parker has no philosophy degree.

Even if we pretended metaphysics changes at birth, his reasoning is still completely wrong. Before birth, the fetus is distinct from the mother. This is self-evident because you can locate the fetus! The fetus is therefore a separate entity from the mother. That the fetus is connected to the mother does not make the fetus any more equivalent to the mother than the fact that my touching another human being makes us the same person. The fetus is also alive before birth. What is an abortion if not the killing of the fetus? You cannot kill what isn’t alive. Regardless of how you look at it, the fetus is most certainly a living organism, distinct from rocks, gasses, and all other non-living objects. Furthermore, if the fetus has a “volitional consciousness” at birth, it most certainly had it moments before birth too. The act of birth does not create the “volitional consciousness” of the fetus, nor does it animate the fetus. These things were already in place before the birth occurred.

In point of fact, the only thing the act of birth does is confer political rights. But political rights are not the same thing as moral rights. Politically, it was okay to own slaves in 1800. Morally, it was not okay to own slaves. Politically, it may be okay to kill unborn human beings; morally, it is not okay to do so.

Parker says: “This is the reason why I provided this patient with the morning after pill and the reason why I am not a murderer.” But a murder is someone who takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. And “because the mother wants to” is not proper justification for taking the life of an unborn human being. Therefore, Parker is a murderer. Not in the legal sense, of course. But not all who are murderers are legally murderers.

In Japan, everyone got to play Snow White because parents “[forced] the school to admit to the injustice of selecting just one girl to play the title role.”

I wish I was making that up. And frankly I’m surprised that hasn’t happened here in America yet. But the fact is, reality is real. Not everyone is “the best” and not everyone deserves the “title role.” In fact, if there is only a title role, you’ve got a monologue. Pretty pointless.

So we have a generation of kids who are never allowed to lose. Not even in video games (cheat codes, anyone?). They go through life never having experienced the pain of coming up short.

As a result, they’re deluded into thinking that the world owes them. Then reality sets in. Usually in the form of their first boss who fires them because (surprise, surprise) they’re losers!

Since the fine folks over at BHT have suffered a complete meltdown (despite what you’re thinking, this happened years ago—the effects are merely continuing through today) and do not allow thinking on their blog, it is rather fun to argue with them. It’s not much unlike discussing anything with any other liberal. You give them a fact and they emote. You give them reason, they whine. I did honestly try to see things from their point of view, but I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum.

Steve and I have offered several posts on prayer since Ted Kennedy was touched by an angel. We’ve actually put forth exegesis of Scripture as well as logical arguments using propositions. The response that BHT has given us is less than underwhelming.

In comments on this post, Randy McRoberts of the BHT said:

The thing is, Peter, that you don’t realize that arguments don’t always matter. It’s character and integrity and love that matter more. You can win arguments all day long against me. So what? You can speak with the tongue of men and angels, too, for all I care.

I don’t care to mount an argument. That’s not what I’m all about. If it works for you, have a ball with it. Don’t expect most people to care a whole lot. You might win the argument, but it’s an empty win.

Think about that for a moment. Randy has admitted that he doesn’t care about thinking, about intellectual consistency, about truth. It’s all about “character and integrity and love” not whether or not you’re actually, you know, correct and all. Mormons probably feel the same way, and I have to say they’re a heck of a lot nicer than the BHT folks are.

Reality has this weird property though. It’s real. It doesn’t change because you’re a nice person. It doesn’t change because you feel warm fuzzies.

So I responded with the following parable:

Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Randy. Randy loved everyone and everything as much as possible. If his cruel, cold-hearted Dad was about to crush a spider, Randy would rescue the spider and lovingly toss it outdoors where it had a chance to live.

One day, an early spring day, Randy was walking down the sidewalk with his evil father when they saw a baby bird lying on the ground. It had obviously fallen from its nest.

“Leave it,” the wicked adult said. “It’s mother will come for it.”

But that was unacceptable for Randy, who loved the poor little bird. So when the demon-in-human-form wasn’t looking, Randy scooped up the baby bird and put it in his pocket.

When they got home, Randy rushed straight to his room. He took out the bird and placed it in an old shoe box. The bird chirped because it was very hungry. So Randy decided to feed the bird.

He asked his less-wicked-but-still-not-quite-loving-because-she-was-a-Presbyterian mother what baby birds ate. She said they ate worms. But Randy knew that couldn’t be the case–worms were icky little creatures (that still deserved to live, mind you–that was why Randy would rescue them before his diabolical father went fishing).

There was a better solution. Randy liked Butterfinger candybars and Dr Pepper to wash them down with. They were his favorite treats. Because he loved the bird so much, Randy shared his favorite things with the bird.

The next morning he awoke to find a very dead bird in the shoe box. Because, you see, poor Randy never grasped the concept that love without knowledge is dangerous. If you love someone or something but you have no clue what they need then you will not be able to satisfy their needs and your love will condemn them to death.

Sadly, this episode did not teach Randy his lesson. Later, he would grow up to believe that it did not matter if a sinner was hell-bound. The important thing was the love them, not to argue with them. The important thing was to make sure the had a sugar buzz before they spent eternity in hell.

And as a result, Randy decided to attack those who were trying to rescue sinners by calling those apologists intellectual elitists in a Big-Brained Blog. And lo, he felt good about himself, and those who were hell-bound enjoyed his taunts. And merrily they continued on the path to destruction.

At least on the day of judgment Randy can say, “I loved everyone I ever put in hell, unlike those bastards at Triablogue who actually convinced a few sinners to change direction by using arguments.”

Naturally, Randy didn’t bother to respond to this here on the T-Blog because he’s a coward and knows he’d get shredded. Instead, he retreated to the BHT (where comments are not allowed because Groupthink must prevail) and whined:

This is a response to a comment I made over there. (Should have known better.) See? I have love, but no knowledge. I’m putting people in hell by loving them. I don’t know what birds eat. I’m attacking those who rescue sinners by arguing with them. I feel good about myself for all this. I’ve learned a lot about myself today.

I don’t think it would take more than about three verses of “Just As I Am” to get me down front. I feel so bad about myself for feeling so good about myself.

Oh, yeah. In another comment I learned that for me to say that there are other ways to converse without putting forth an argument is “in itself an argument”. Now, that’s heavy. I’m not sure I get it, since I’m not intellectual at all.

Well it is obvious that Randy is no intellectual since he cannot grasp a simple parable. Instead, he thinks he needs to read everything literally. Frankly, I would be ashamed to speak in public if I was as dumb as Randy brags about being.

But to clear up the record, when Randy says “I have love, but no knowledge” he is wrong. He has just as much love as he has knowledge: none.

I, for one, have never read a loving remark from Randy about me. No, I just get his hate poured out upon me. (These are the same people who complain about us when we debate Arminians because “we should treat brothers in Christ better than non-believers” yet they have no qualms treating the “TR”, as they call us, as badly as possible. Then again, you shouldn’t expect consistency from those who hate intelligence in the first place.)

Secondly, I wouldn’t say that Randy is attacking apologists by arguing with us because nothing Randy’s ever said could be misconstrued as an argument.

Naturally, the other bored skulls acted shocked by what went on. For instance, JS Bangs said:

Wow. I mean, wow.

To which I respond: “Like totally! I mean, TOTALLY!

Bangs continued:

What exactly gave any of them the impression that we don’t care about the salvation of the lost?

The fact that you’re not trying to convince the lost they’re on the wrong path is a great indication that you don’t care where they’re headed. Then again, I use logic.

The fact that several people admitted they had trouble grokking the concept of Hell?

Well, it is kinda hard to see how someone not going to Hell needs to worry about going to Hell. Then again, I use logic.

Or the fact that we actually pray for the unsaved?

Except I don’t believe you. You claim to pray for the unsaved, yet you do everything in your power to impede those who are seeking the unsaved. What exactly do you pray regarding the unsaved? And frankly a general prayer “Lord save the unsaved” is no substitute for genuine prayer either. Then again, I use logic.

I have zero interest in reading any TR blogs, so I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to say.

And this, of course, is the first sign that you’re dealing with a moron. Ask questions, and then say, “I’m not going to listen to the answer.” This works when you’re three years old, but we expect more from adults. Then again, I use logic.

Not content to leave it at that, Strawfoot said:

Is he actually saying that he and his BBB fellows have actually talked people into becoming Christians?

Yes, I am.

WHAT?! How can this be? Well, Strawfoot, it’s really quite simple if you actually cared about what the wicked TRs believed (which you don’t, cuz God forbid you’d actually have to talk with one!). God uses…are you ready for this now?…MEANS to enact His will.

I know, revolutionary concept. Not found in any Reformed literature except for all of it.

And since I get e-mails sent to me, I know that there do indeed exist people who’ve been convinced of the truth of Christianity by way of some of the arguments that I’ve presented. God’s used me to bring some to Himself, and I am honored to be of use to Him.

The BHT is a great example of what happens when Politically Correct thinking runs amok. They preach tolerance by being intolerant of everyone who disagrees with them. They teach that love is most important by being as unloving as possible toward other Christians. They think that something’s wrong with you if you use the brain God gave you.

Frankly, if their version of Christianity was true, I’d be an atheist. And that’s something that Randy and other BHTers don’t get. They think that everyone is as emotive as they are and that no one cares about thinking correctly. But I do. My mere existence refutes their notion that everyone agrees with them. I do enjoy thinking, I am intellectually oriented, I do study, I do use my brain. And because of that, I can actually interact with the atheists in our world who are likewise intellectually oriented.

That’s something that none of Randy’s self-serving emotive bleating will ever be able to accomplish.

I read this article (H/T: Evan May). The article is interesting on many levels, but the point I want to look at is the following question:

Ghalib Aljibara, an Iraqi student at New York University, said a useful examination of terrorism should begin with a more constructive principle: “What do you think is the best way to create peace all around the world?”

Here’s a perfect example of someone who wants to ask a magnanomous-sounding question rather than deal with issues. It certainly sounds like a nice question, until you realize that a perfectly reasonable answer to that question is: “Kill everyone.” Yes, if you kill everyone then no one will be at war with anyone else and there will be peace all around the world. Suddenly, that question is exposed for the hollow tripe that it is.

The fact of the matter isn’t that we need to “create peace” but instead we need to address the problem of evil in the world. You can come up with evil solutions to make “world peace” (i.e., Shaira law), but that’s not an improvement. Thus, if you really don’t want to address the issues and would prefer to pander to the PC crowd, at least go so far as to say: “How can we rid the world of as much evil as possible?”

Of course, the PC crowd doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as evil in the first place. Which is why they’ll never have peace.

Former Pakistania P.M. Banazir Bhutto was assassinated this morning. And while the title of this blog post (who woulda seen that coming?) could refer to that, it doesn’t. Instead, it refers to the dingbat wing of our nation.

For instance, comments on this ABC blog post include such gems as:

ok, this has all the signs of crap. No matter what comes out now, AlQueada has been associated with this. Welcome back to the politics of fear. Next, we will hear how someone admitted of this plot under torture and that if we had been allowed to be more aggressive with it we might have found something out sooner.

Posted by: Louis | Dec 27, 2007 12:10:48 PM

And my personal favorite:

A perfect excuse from the White House to enter in Pakistan????? How many american kids will die now? How many troops will be send to Pakistan?? How many mothers will be crying? Please, my friends No more War…no more suffering.

Posted by: norma | Dec 27, 2007 12:24:34 PM

Yes. The segment of our country that knows only blind hatred of George W. Bush thinks that this is all a big conspiracy for us to invade Pakistan now! There is no reasoning with people such as this.

But look at the end of the above post: “Please, my friends No more War…no more suffering.”

There’s a huge problem with this mentality. If you do not go after the thugs, you will get nothing but pain and suffering. Sorry “norma”, but those of us in the real world recognize that sometimes we need to kill people who would kill us. If you don’t believe it, let’s move it to a different topic. Take the gangsters of the 1930s. Do you suppose when Bruno shook down the store owners for “protection money” that, if the owner said, “Please, my friend. No more war. No more suffering. Let’s all get along” that Bruno woulda said, “Gee, you’re right”? Of course not. Bruno would have said, “Give me the money or I’ll cap you.”

When someone is already willing to do harm to an innocent person, then you’re not going to stop him with words. The fact is, evil people exist in the world. And evil people prey on others. They do not care about your concept of non-violence. They are more than willing to blow you to bits to get their way. This is reality.

There’s a reason God instituted government with the power of the sword.

The YouTube Killer. (By the way, is anyone else tired of newspaper articles that use the phrase “not uncommon” as if that were profound instead of just improper English?)

Anyway, in Pekka-Eric Auvinen’s own words, the reason he went into a school in Finland and killed 8 people (and then himself) is because:

I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.

Yup. All those Christian values corrupted this guy for sure. After all, it is Christian teaching that says the “human race is not worth fighting for or saving… only worth killing” and that “the truth is that I am just an animl [sic]“.

He does tell us not to blame others for his actions, so at least we know he wasn’t a Liberal. If only he had rid himself of his Biblical worldview! “No mercy for the scum of the earth! HUMANITY IS OVERRATED! It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!”

Ironically, he does end his diatribe with the statement “Justice renders to everyone his due.” Which I’m sure he is finding out at this very moment…

I just read this article about a family who tried to abort a “weaker” twin who refused to die. Now I could go on about certain aspects of that, but what I want to focus on here is this stupid statement by the mother:

It really is a miracle. Doctors carried out an operation to let Gabriel die - yet he hung on.

Did you catch that? “Doctors carried out an operation to let Gabriel die“…to let him die????

I suppose if I ever kill someone I can stand before the judge and say, “Your honor, I simply pulled the trigger/cut the throat/poisoned the food of the victim to let the victim die. I didn’t actually do anything. It was all passive.”

This statement by Mrs. Jones is nothing but a rationalization of abortion by making it seem passive instead of admitting it is the active killing of the unborn. We see the same exact terminology used in euthenasia cases too. “We’ll pull the feeding tube and let the patient die. It’s what they would have wanted.”

All this begs the point that anyone who deprives another person of food will CAUSE that person die. Anyone who engages in activities that will cause the death of another human being is not “letting” death occur, it is causing death to occur.

Words have meaning. The fact that this woman felt pricked in her conscious enough for her to twist her words from an active killing to a passive allowing of a death demonstrates that she knows in her heart that what the doctors were doing was wrong. If the doctor’s decision is not morally suspect, there is no reason to pretend that what the doctors do is to permit a death instead of causing the death.

Or should we just say he’s a more consistent secular humanist than most other secular humanists?

This is the problem when people want the result of a Biblical worldview (”For there is neither Greek nor Jew…”) without believing in a Biblical worldview. If you are a materialist, like Watson is, the end result is that you have to be consistent to your materialistic view. And materialism cannot account for universal human rights. There are no rights at all. No one is “created” equal at all. And there is no moral reason not to discriminate if need be.

Thus you can make blanket statements that whites are more intelligent than blacks (usually “softened” by claiming blacks are more athletic than whites–but everyone knows brains over brawn…you know, like how the dinosaurs died because they were big and stupid but mammals lived because they were small and smart? etc.). There is no reason not to because the small sample that Watson has looked at fits this mould.

Further, Watson would like for us to ensure the bottom 10% of people (the really stupid people) can’t breed, so that the gene pool becomes better. This is the inevitable result of rational self-interest combined with evolutionary ethics. If we want to evolve to better individuals, we have to become less altruistic and we have to weed out the weaklings.

Ignore all references to Hitler at this point, of course. All that matters is that we can define “most fit” as “most like me.”

Again, this is par for the course for secularists. This is what they are logically reduced to because there is no rational basis for any type of ethics in a materialistic worldview. There is no one created in the image of God, and therefore there is no reason to respect humanity any more than you’d respect the chemical reaction in a bottle of vinegar mixed with baking soda. Both are nothing more than events that occur. The meaning to the events are assigned subjectively by individuals, and if those subjective individuals decide that certain traits are undesireable enough to kill over, there is no higher standard to say that these conclusions are wrong. This is the inevitable result of secular humanism. This is what happens when secular humanists believe their philosophy.

And this is why Christians are obligated to promote an alternative worldview–the Biblical worldview.