Defining "Gay"

Once again, I must profess my hatred for semantics; or, rather, I must profess my hatred for those times when a person who utterly lacks semantics unwittingly punches a hole in their reasoning skills because they do not understand how context works.

Instead of defining "atheism", I shall be defining "gay" this time around.  The adjective "gay" has four accepted definitions:

1. sexually attracted to a person of the same sex; homosexual
2. lighthearted and carefree; happy and exited
3. very bright in color
4. foolish, stupid, or unimpressive

Now, here is the main point of this entire article: at no point in using the word "gay" will you ever invoke every one of its definitions simultaneously.

A Lesson In Context

Whenever you hear a person speak, it is important that you are aware of the circumstances or situations that gave rise to the idea, event, or statement in question.  When you read a passage, it is important that you have also read the passages that immediately precede and follow the words or passages you are currently reading in order to understand and clarify the meaning of your selected text.  When consider a word, such as "gay", with its surrounding words or circumstances, you are taking that word in context.  When you ignore the surrounding words or circumstances, you have taken the word out of context, and therefore the meaning of the word is not fully understood.  Taking the word "gay" out of context is why so many people wantonly get upset when they hear it spoken aloud.

For example, let's say I declare, with a grin on my face, that "I am feeling gay!"  A person who understood what I said in context will understand instantly that I am feeling lighthearted or happy.  They will also understand that I am not saying that I am feeling stupid, or homosexual, or bright in color.  They would see my smiling face, hear the excitement in my voice, and understand with the utmost comprehension that in this context, "gay" means "happy".

Another example: let's say I want to buy something nice to treat myself, but later realize I lack the funds to do so.  In my frustration, I might remark, "Aw man!  I don't have enough money.  That is so gay!"  I ask you, would it make any shred of sense to conclude that I must be referring to this situation as being homosexual in nature?  The correct answer is no: it would make no sense to infer that I am using "gay" in any way other the intended meaning—the context in this case being "stupid".

The problem is that there are people on this earth who are quite neurotic and frankly inept at understanding things in their proper context.  These hypersensitive individuals erringly conclude that when I refer to something as "gay", I must be referring to that something as being homosexual, regardless of the context.  They then go on to insinuate that by doing so, I am somehow indirectly insulting every homosexual on the planet.

Two words: utter nonsense.  No one is being insulted.  You are simply choosing to be offended.

I cannot stress enough how important context is, and how often reasonable human beings take it for granted.  As individuals and intellectuals, we really do have a responsibility to educate ourselves thoroughly and properly, because our stupidity cannot just harm us.  It can also harm others.

Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, drunkenness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.     —Aristophanes 

Defining "Atheism"

One of my greatest pet peeves is semantics.  Too often, people become so caught up in what they think a certain word actually means that they miss the entire point of their conversation.  The word is not important, dear reader: the meaning is.

In recent years, people have been trying to redefine the word atheism.  The new definition that the New Oxford Dictionary offers for atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".  Google defines atheism in the same way, and so does Urban Dictionary, and American Atheists, and Atheism.org.  I, on the other hand, much prefer the proper and traditional definition of atheism which is used by the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language as well as theologians and philosophers the world over.  Here is the correct definition of atheism:

a·the·ism

ˈāTHēˌizəm

noun

The theological/philosophical stance which holds that the statement "There is at least one deity" is false.

I'll be frank: this new definition of atheism as a "lack of belief" is totally stupid.  It is incoherent, incomplete, and it suffers logically and philosophically.  Atheists aren't even fully aware of the implications of defining their atheism as such.  This new definition is nothing more than a pitiful attempt of avoiding the burden of proof that the claim "there is no god" thrusts upon them.

In a deceptive game of wordplay, atheists (most particularly the New Atheist movement) have been attempting to put the burden of proof completely on the theist by declaring, "I do not believe that no gods exist.  I do not believe that gods exist.  I merely lack belief in any gods.  I am ignorant to there being any deities at all.  I am not making any special knowledge claim."  Essentially, they are insisting that their theological stance is not a stance at all, because they are intellectually lazy and/or dishonest.  I find that all this really does is trivialize atheism.  It isn't very productive, it's intellectually dissatisfying, and in my humble opinion it is quite annoying.

On the Burden of Proof:

If a person makes a claim, then that person is a claimant.  A claimant is a person who says "I know something that is true."  The burden of proof dictates that the claimant is solely responsible for proving that his claim is true.  Here is an example: I am a Christian, and I thusly make the claim that God does exist.  For this reason, I, the claimant, have the burden of proof: I alone am responsible for proving my claim.  It would be fallacious for me to attempt to ignore or shirk the burden of proof by saying, "Prove me wrong", or "You can't prove that I'm wrong".  It is not your job to prove or disprove my claim.  It is my job, and mine alone.  Since I am making a knowledge claim, I am responsible for proving that my claim to knowledge is true.

Many atheists do not want the burden of proof, often because the burden of proof is too much for the atheist to handle (either because they are intellectually lazy, dishonest, or they simply can't find any sufficient proof to support their claim that no gods exist).  They try to avoid it by either saying, "Well, I merely lack a belief in a god or gods" or "Atheism isn't a claim; it's a response to a claim".  No, it is indeed a claim.

Making a Diagnosis

I'll make things very simple for everyone with a simple litmus test.  This test will be able to tell you whether a person is a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic.  All you have to do is ask one yes/no question, and the person's answer will determine their theological position.

Ask someone the question: "Is there a god?"  If he answers "yes", then he is a theist.  If he answers "no", then he is an atheist.  If he answers "I do not know" or "I am not sure", then he is an agnostic.

It is very important that the test remain in the form of a question, and not a statement.  By asking a question, you are prompting the person you are asking to make a knowledge claim.  This is why we ask questions.  Questions are how humans request knowledge claims.  Answers are knowledge claims.  Therefore, by asking "Is there a god?" you are forcing the person you are asking to make a claim to knowledge.  You can also word the question by using the definition I provided earlier—"Do you think the claim 'There is at least one deity' is true or false?"  If they answer "true", then again, they are theists.  If they answer "false", they are atheists, and if they answer, "I don't know/I'm not sure", they are agnostic.

I'll make this abundantly clear: Agnostics are the ones who lack a belief in God, not atheists.

So, What Is An Atheist?

Philosophy is in essence the pursuit of knowledge.  Science is the most commonplace form of philosophy.  Science is an empirical philosophy: the pursuit of knowledge by means of observation and measurement.  By defining atheism as a lack of belief, atheists are asserting that atheism is not a philosophical stance, but instead an autobiographical summary of their current psychological state.

I find this utterly laughable, because given this new definition of atheism, my cat, Mouser, is an atheist.  Mouser utterly lacks belief in any sort of deity, so he is an atheist by this new definition.  What is more, my laptop which I am using to type out this blog is also an atheist, because my laptop not only lacks belief in a god, but also lacks belief in anything!  My doorknob and my beard likewise lack belief in a god, so these things are atheists as well.  Most interestingly: the neurons firing in my brain—which I use to profess my belief in God—are themselves atheists.  As you can see, this new definition of atheism is completely trivial and not meaningful.  It certainly wasn't thought through.

This new definition, as I've said several times already, is intellectually dissatisfying, because even if atheism really is simply a lack of belief, it doesn't help to answer the question so many of us are asking: "Is there a god or not?"

Now, let's say that the New Atheists have their day, and everyone universally agrees to redefine atheism as being a lack of belief in a god.  That still does not mean that only theists have the burden of proof, because there will still be people who make the claim "There are no gods", and these people will still have the burden of proof.

The only difference is that we won't call them atheists.  We'll just call them something else instead.

And that, dear reader, is why I hate semantics.

The Analogous Trilogy: Abortion, Slavery, and Guns for Hire

If you support abortion, you must also support slavery and guns for hire.

Now that I have your attention, I shall elucidate.  I am not a slave owner, nor do I support slavery.  I am not an advocate for human trafficking, nor am I a racist, nor a misogynist, nor an abortionist.  I am an abolitionist against both abortion and slavery, and I am calling the Pro-Choice movement out on their outrageous inconsistencies.

I will present various popular arguments used in support of abortion, and then demonstrate how they can also logically be used to support either slavery or guns for hire.  I will be doing this to show why these arguments for abortion ultimately admit that the human fetus is being mistreated, abused, and murdered every time one is aborted.

I have covered the two most general arguments below.  I shall add more analogies after this post has been published as they are brought to my attention.

"My body; my choice." is analogous to "My plantation; my prerogative."

Many pro-choice advocates assert that the woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body.  They also claim that the fetus inside of a pregnant woman is a part of her body.  Therefore, the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses.

Advocates for slavery assert that the slave owner has the right to do whatever they want with their own property.  They also claim that slaves are like cattle, and in this way are the property of the slave owner.  Therefore, the slave owner has the right to buy, sell, put to work, beat, and kill the slave if he so chooses.

Neither of these arguments provide apt justification for the following reasons:

1. They dehumanize their respective victims.
   
   
   Pro-choice advocates liken the fetus to a clump of cells.  No one would object to the killing of cells, because cells are not capable of feeling pain.  The reality is that the fetus is biologically separate from the mother.  This can be proven by the fact that, if the blood of the fetus is shared with the blood of the mother, both the mother and the baby would die.  The DNA of the fetus and the DNA of the mother will also always be completely, 100% distinguishable from each other.  This same DNA will also show that the fetus is homo sapiens sapiens, and is indeed human.  Therefore, it follows that the unborn is a human being being denied the same right to life as its mother.
   
   
   In the same way, pro-slavery advocates liken the slave to cattle.  Cattle are put to work in fields, butchered, and skinned for their hide to benefit mankind every day.  Cattle do not have human rights because they are inferior animals.  This is the mentality of slave owners.  Slaves are animals that can be traded, put to work for no pay (no one would ever pay a cow except in food), and killed or sold when their usefulness comes to an end.  The reality is that all slaves are human beings who are denied the same rights to freedom as their human masters.
   
   
2. They assume ownership where they should not.
   
   Pro-choice advocates say that because a fetus resides within the mother, then the fetus belongs to and is a part of the woman's body.  This claim is unfounded and ultimately selfish.  If you accept that the self owns the self, then you must conclude that the fetus owns itself, and not the mother.  Therefore, the mother is obligated to provide the fetus with its basic human rights, as the mother does with all other human beings under her care.
   
   Pro-slavery advocates say that because slave owners buy their slaves, and that because those slaves live on their plantation, then the slave owners do indeed own their slaves.  This claim is unfounded and ultimately selfish as well.  If you accept that the self owns the self, that every human being is entitled to self-ownership, then you must conclude that the slave owns himself, and not his master.  Therefore their masters are obligated to release their slaves and provide them with the same rights that they themselves are given as free human beings.  We saw this happen as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation in the 1860s and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.  I hope similar situations happen with abortion.
   
   
3. They imply that ownership justifies neglect and abuse.
   
   Pro-choice advocates say that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body.  The woman is therefore allowed to get tattoos, paint her nails, put on make-up, mutilate her skin, amputate her limbs, and eliminate anything growing inside of her uterus.  While I uphold the ideology of self-ownership, I also argue that if you own something—even yourself—you are morally obligated to care for your own property.  If you are not willing to care for your possessions, you do not deserve to have it in the first place.  Failing to care for your own things demonstrates laziness, apathy, and selfishness on your part.  If you are pregnant, care for the child growing within you, or at the very least, put it up for adoption when it is born so that someone else can care for it.  Do not murder it.
   
   Pro-slavery advocates say that a slave owner can do whatever he likes with his property on his plantation.  This includes their slaves.  The slave owner is therefore able to brand, beat, whip, mutilate, amputate, and kill his slaves.  If you are not going to treat your slave well, then you wasted your money by buying one.  If you have a slave, take good care of him, or better yet, emancipate him!  If you're not willing to do either of those, at the very least sell him to another slave owner who will take good care of him.  Do not abuse another human being.
   
   

"My life was improved because I aborted." is analogous to "My live was improved because I hired an assassin to kill my husband."

A woman finds herself pregnant.  She is now faced with the financial struggle of having to pay for doctor's appointments, baby clothes, baby accessories, baby food, diapers, and insurance to cover both herself and her child.  She may or may not have a husband to support her financially as well as emotionally.  She will have to face nearly a full year of physical pain and hormonal hurricanes, and at the end will have to endure the outrageously massive pain of delivery, where her situation will still not improve.  Think of how much easier her life would be if she was able to hire a third party (trained doctors) to terminate her pregnancy.

Let's say that a woman finds herself in an abusive relationship.  She is now faced with the financial struggle of having to pay for things she needs like food and clothing while her partner wastes it on beer and porn magazines, and also has to pay for the visits to the doctor to fix her broken bones and bruised ribs when he or she beats her.  She may or may not be seeking for help from friends, and therefore may or may not have the emotional support she needs.  Her attempts to divorce her partner have failed due to legal complications, as well as not being able to afford a lawyer, and her attempts to escape from him/her have resulted in her being severely punished.  She is stuck with her partner, and sees no end to her suffering.  Think of how much easier her life would be if she was able to hire a third party (trained assassins) to terminate her abusive partner.

Neither of these arguments provide apt justification for the following reasons:

1. Appealing to emotion cannot justify anything.
   
   While both arguments appear to present a strong case for what they are trying to defend (abortion and guns for hire), they are both in reality logical fallacies.  They attempt to manipulate an emotional response instead of providing an actual, concrete, compelling argument.  In the end, neither case even comes close to validating what they are trying to support.  All they really do is tug at your heartstrings in an attempt to manipulate you into allowing them to commit violence.
   
   
2. In the end, murder is still murder, no matter who carries it out.
   
   No matter what your reasons are for killing another human being, you must have the reality that you have killed a human being.  Even the woman who has her life threatened by her husband every day, if she hires a third party to kill him, has committed premeditated murder, and would face criminal charges.  Abortion is not self-defense.  Abortion is murder by a third party, i.e. doctors with degrees instead of assassins with bullets.
   
   
3. Women are not the only ones with the right to live.
   
   Women's rights are very important, and the Women's Rights movement is a noble one.  Feminism is also a movement with good intentions at its core.  However, one must not put so much focus on the rights of women that one infringes on the rights of others as a result.
   
   As Gianna Jessen, a survivor of a failed saline abortion attempt, said: "My life was being snuffed out in the name of Women's Rights."
   
   That is not to say that we should do away with the rights of women!  Make no mistake!  The point is that human rights are for the betterment of humanity, and not for the betterment of a single, entitled party.  If a woman has the right to choose what is done with her own body, then every unborn baby girl must automatically have the right to life until she can choose for herself whether or not to continue living.  Even if a woman is in an abusive relationship, that does not give her the right to hire a third party to do the dirty work for her.  That is not self-defense, as I said previously.  That is premeditated murder.