Friday, March 24, 2017

The Glory of Habits

My Growing Child,
    If you researched the definition of Justice I provided before in my explanation about the relation between Justice and Fairness, you may have come across Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologicae. In there, he talks about Justice being a habit. Habits today tend to have a negative connotation due to the prevalence of addictions, but there are good habits too called virtues.
    Virtues are good habits of actions we perform as if they are part of our nature. In fact, habits are so intrinsic that we use them to describe and define a person. We say things like, "He's a just man," or "she's a loving mother." Habits are hard to change, but in this case, that is good.
    One objection I might expect from you stems from the ideal of Free Will. Since habits make it difficult to choose, wouldn't all habits be evil? There are two ways to address this. One way is to argue that the purpose of free will and life is to establish these habits. However, that would be a long debate. The second opinion is that habits do not eliminate choice. For example, I may be generous, but I can still decide the amount to give or refrain completely. There are various levels of virtue in which you can choose to grow or not. Likewise, you can choose to resist your habit or accept it.
    Now that you know this, I ask you how you would like to be known. Will people describe you with heroic virtues or selfish vices? The choice is up to you.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo


P. S. You can find the definition of justice as given by Thomas Aquinas at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3058.htm in his answer to Article 1. There, he says "justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will"

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Concerning Breastfeeding Rights



I recently was examining an airline's section on child traveling when I noticed a line that stated, "we support a woman's right to breastfeed her child." This reminded me that there is controversy surrounding this issue. My friend recently had to fight with her family who were trying to physically block her from doing so. I stopped to wonder if women should have a right to breastfeed. My first instinct was no, but then I figured "yes, but that we are looking at it wrong."

I think putting Breastfeeding as a woman's right takes away from the real issue; shouldn't it be the baby's right to be breastfed. If you recall, I argue that a right is supposed to help us move towards our perfection. Breast milk is superior to baby formula. Not only does it contain the essential nutrients, but it provides the enzymes the body needs and antibodies to strengthen the baby's immune system. Baby formula still can't replicate everything to the point that it's a selling point when they finally get an ingredient. In addition, bottlefeeding had been studied to show an increase in obesity. Consider also that the bonding time between mother and child is of great importance. If the baby can get his mother's breast milk, then it is our duty as society to let him in peace.

Now what about the mother? I at first considered it more of it responsibility than right, but I can now see that it is her right. Breastfeeding has some conveniences such as not having to prepare a bottle or buy anything extra beyond pads. It also helps with the recovery from child birth. If you want to space out your children, it helps as well though with various success. It can prevent breast cancer, feel good, burn calories, and diapers are not foul smelling. However, is the bonding I mentioned earlier that convinces me that it is a right.

If there is only action that can increase your ability to love, bonding is a high contender. I saw this occur in my wife and my own love for her grew as well. Is there anything more beautiful than to see the love between a mother and her child?

On the other hand, women also have a right to choose to refrain from breastfeeding. This is because breastfeeding is also very intensive and draining. It takes a lot of effort and can be almost impossible for the mother who has to work full time. However, This also means that if a mother decides to breastfeed, we should give full support.

If we fight breastfeeding, then we naturally condemn breasts to be sexual objects. This is not their purpose nor should it be. Women are people who by nature is capable of great love. Babies are people with rights as well and both should be loved and respected by society.

N. D. Moharo

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Let's Fight for Women's Rights!

To Society,
    There has been a war on women for far too long. Women are our mothers and sisters and they deserve respect. They are not objects for another's pleasure, but human beings. They are precious and beautiful. They are worth fighting for to protect.
    What should we be fighting? Anything which takes away from their dignity as human beings. We should fight against corporate greed which targets their insecurities. We should fight against abuse of the innocents and against abuse entirely. We should fight against the political ideas that try to keep them enslaved. We should fight against that which takes away their innocence and virtue.
    I was saw a tweet about telling women to a stop being polite. This saddened me deeply. When women in general stop being polite, who will be left to teach others how to be respectful? No, society depends on women being polite and teaching men to be the same. It is common knowledge that violence only brings about more violence. Unless someone stops the chain, suffering will only spread. Women are good at this because they have historically had the reputation of loving the most. And the people who love the most are the greatest people, not those with power.

    The great everyday heroes are mothers. After all, how many times in our childhood have we told our moms that we "hated" them, a woman who has sacrificed so much out of love? But they endure it and still love us. I know I don't want to hurt my wife, but it will inadvertently happen, because we are human and hurt even when we intend to help. If it wasn't for that quality of enduring love in women, society would be lost. If a woman only cries and then forgives, she is truly the strong one.
    A woman's heart is precious and should be treasured. Therefore we must fight anything that threatens to demeans them. I am opposed to the many TV shows tell boys that they need to sleep with many women to be a man. That is not the case at all, especially since that is a huge disrespect to the great woman's heart. Women are people, not sex toys. A real man certainly loves many women, meaning that he cares about them and their rights, not having sex. Sex is a very precious thing, something that should be treasured with one person only. My wife told me that she knew I loved her because I was adamant about waiting until marriage before having sex. A man can show that he is really able to love, but saving everything for one woman and show that she is precious. 
    I am similarly opposed to shows and movies that convince girls that they need sex to feel loved. There are five love languages and sex alone just falls under one of them. What we should do instead is teach boys and girls these love languages and how to interpret which is needed. No one should ever feel like they are not loved because they don't have sex. In fact, there are lots of testimonies of Natural Family Planning saving marriages because it forces couples to remember that loving does not require sex.

    Likewise, why should a woman feel like she needs makeup if she is a member of the fairer sex? If we convince a woman that she's only beautiful when she is not showing her true face, how can that be good for her? It is totally unnecessary especially when I look at my wife and admire her beautiful face without makeup. I have always thought that she looked good without makeup, but it took her years to be comfortable without it around me. It's the same with glasses. Some women look really nice with glasses, but the typical beauty makeover movie says no.
    Speaking of beauty, today's society appears to have confused sexiness with beauty. We appreciate art without desiring to have sex with, why should women be any different? However, the current trends for fashion are to try and make women as sexy as possible. Why is it that women should show skin and wear makeup to be considered beautiful when men do the opposite? Shouldn't we instead encourage modest dress? I have yet to meet a man who told me that he respected immodest women more than the modestly dressed.
http://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/g1931/golden-globes-best-dressed-2014/?slide=4 
    On another front, Women need to be able to earn a just wage. Not every woman is meant to be married. I know plenty of single women, especially from my father's generation, who never married but are perfectly content. Their joy still comes from being apart of their families, or even other families as one of my neighbors is with mine. I see them as perfectly loving in giving their time and energies helping others and that is just great. However, these women therefore need to be able to earn a living wage. Society should not assume that women are all going to get married and be provided for, especially when it's becoming increasingly difficult for one person to provide for a family. If we are in a society where it is common for both parents to work, then that means it is not acceptable for women to be earning less for the same work, especially single mothers.
    We are in an unfortunate society where many pregnant women are single. These women need to earn a living wage, but the current situation makes it difficult to also raise her children and work. When maternity leave is so short, it's makes having children feel impossible. In cases like this, I feel like the U.S. should adopt standards like Japan where mothers can get long maternity leaves, even if it means that they receive only 2/3 of their salary paid for by health insurance. I heard that one company allowed their employees to take up to two years for maternity leave.
    One issue I have had with the Pro-life movement is it's nearsightedness. It wants to dismantle Planned Parenthood because of it's heavy push for abortion, but they haven't pushed a good alternative to replace everything else associated with it. I definitely agree that if a woman cannot kill a two-year old because of economic hardship, mental disabilities, or because of a traumatic event, they should not be allowed to kill an unborn child whom I see as a human being as well. However, the pro-life movement only seems concerned with ending legalized abortion, not addressing the issues which drive some to have abortion whether safe or not. We need to understand, because through that, we show we care about both the mother and child.
    I see no reason why we should be forcing poor women to feel like they need to kill their children. Don't women have a right to have their children? Can we truly say that we are progressive if we make people feel like they cannot have as many children as those who went through the Great Depression? We should be helping them with their situation. We need support shelters to save women from abuse, better pay and environments for working mothers, and governments, insurance, and businesses that put people back at the center and not money.
 
 
With Love,
N. D. Moharo


P. S. I found the following two videos interesting. I found it interesting to watch Cameron Russel go from a short black dress with an open back (fairly sexy) to a dress and sweatshirt (beautiful). She also talks about the difference between the photos in the magazines vs real life
The second, because these are people who have received comments about the confusion between beauty and sexiness and give an idea about why that may be. However, take note that they are speaking to a very specific audience




Thursday, January 26, 2017

Theory: Why Men like Big Breasts

It is an assumption that men in general like women with big breasts. As a member of the male gender, I won't argue with the claim. However, I have wondered why breasts in a woman can arouse men. I don't know the answer, but I do have some theories.

One idea is the natural instinct of bigger breasts meaning more milk. While breast size is more about fat than milk production, I do think there is some credibility due to the fact that breasts can get bigger when breastfeeding. My wife has the stretch marks to prove it.

Another theory is impression. I noticed my son had his eyes open while breastfeeding. As such, the breasts would appear big to have as a baby and the breasts were bigger when he was breastfeeding. Hence, the perception of breasts being big when we were small and drinking the milk could influence our thoughts.

However, many children don't breastfeed. Why would they like big breasts? Possibly in combination with the previous point, they have seen big breasts often and this influenced their perception of beauty. If you remember my letter on beauty, we as children as easily impressionable and we still are as adults.

Another possibility is that breasts are smooth, soft, and springy. Men tend to like smooth and soft skin. Women's breasts are one area that naturally does not have hair. They also are soft, making like a nice pillow. As such, they appear to be nice to touch. In fact, some women liked having their breasts touched, even to the point that they get a high while breastfeeding. To be fair, it appears that some women like to touch breasts as well based off what I heard from female classmates.

There is also the bouncing element. Perhaps rooted in that we like bouncy things as children (the fastest way I found to calm an infant and the pure joy of a bounce house), breasts are something that we have the impression of being able to bounce. This is such a deal that it's a controversial element of video games where it's taken to unrealistic proportions. Of course, this adds to the focus element as extra attention is spent on big breasts.

Perhaps the biggest reason though for big breasts is as a psychological shortcut to identifying women. Just as men currently like skirts as they indicate a woman in modern society, so too breasts. The bigger the breasts, the more likely it's a woman and therefore sexually compatible. While fat men can have big chests as well, they are the exception and are shaped differently as well, still allowing for the discrimination.

Now, this is not to mean that big breasts are important for all men. Some men like small chests while others focus on other parts of the body. I personally focus on the face and hair first. The face contains the alluring eyes and stunning smile, and hair that complements the face is simply gorgeous. 

In conclusion, I believe there are a variety of reasons for the fascination of big breasts among men. It could be any combination of the above plus some that I am likely missing. Perhaps it makes sense that there may not be a single reason as people are different. However, it is important to realize that it's only one aspect of a woman's beauty and not necessarily the most important.

N. D. Moharo

Note: There's an article looking at the absurd breasts physics of video games. They give a Not Safe for Work warning so I figured I should do the same before linking to it. If you want to read the article, you can find it at http://kotaku.com/how-video-game-breasts-are-made-and-why-they-can-go-so-1687753475  

Sunday, January 15, 2017

The Gender Neutral Pronoun we've been using for ages

To the Politically Correct,
    Language is a initially a complicated matter, but as society creates demands for change, it becomes even more so. This becomes a big problem as it becomes harder even for natives to master the language, which in turn creates even more complications. This also makes it very difficult for foreigners to learn the language and may even result in the death of a language. However, perhaps the saddest result is that newer generations will not be able to understand us or our ancestors rich literature.
    It is difficult to satisfy both requirements of simplicity and change, but if the changes were to make the language simpler, then perhaps that is the best route.
    A recent movement that makes things complicated is the idea of gender neutral pronouns. English, like every language I have studied, has historically used the male to represent both genders. However, a lot of women are annoyed that they may be excluded or an after thought due to ambiguity.
    There have been attempts to introduce a gender neutral word, but to find a good word and convince people to use it is too troublesome. I recall an article from a long time ago where a country tried "hen" which has a lot of problems. Why call someone a bird that is also female? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Add a bonus fact that the same word in Japanese means "strange/perverted" and we have irony. Another method was to add female words to clarify, but to add "or she" to every instance of he is tedious. Next attempt is to use "they" even when it's singular. That just adds another complication and is grammatically incorrect.

   So my proposed solution is as follows: use "It". The issue for this was that "It" is for objects, not people. Except that this is not entirely true. We have had the complication of using "It" as a gender neutral pronoun for ages. Here are some examples:

Who is it?
It is I
It's a girl!

Since we already use it for when we don't know the gender and sometimes even when we do know the gender, let's just expand its role. That's simpler and removes complications.

N. D. Moharo

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Christmas Post 2016

To all,
    Now Christmas is of a season of love. Though if there is anything a dictionary can teach us, words can have multiple meanings. As your Christmas present, here are four meanings we may be using when we say we love someone.

1) We greatly care for someone.
2) We are greatly similar to someone.
3) We greatly admire someone.
4) We greatly desire being with someone.

I use these meanings to form the basis of Love Tanks, meaning these four definitions need to be satisfied for a person to feel loved.

Now to fill the Love Tanks, you must speak one of the Love Languages. You can do Acts of Service, Give Gifts, Spend Quality Time, Speak Words of Affirmation, or Physical Contact (like hugs). Since each person speaks different languages primarily, you need to do figure which one they receive best. My theory is that the language they want the most relates the the definition of love they feel they are lacking the most. Here's a chart from the perspective of receiving the love language


So this Chrsitmas, if you couldn't figure what to give someone, try another language because love is the best gift we can give.

Merry Christmas!
N. D. Moharo


Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Justice and Fairness

To the Afflicted,
    Some of today's society believes that Justice and Fairness are the same thing. However, even the usage of the phrase of a decision being "Fair and Just" indicates this is not the case. They are certainly related, but they are definitely different.
    An old and essential definition of Justice is rendering what is due. When we argue if someone's case is just, we argue whether or not they deserve something or not. When putting someone on trial, we are trying to argue what sentence they deserve to get. However, the question becomes "How to determine was is just?" That is where fairness comes into play, by which I argue to be "judging by the same standard for different people/things."
    An apt analogy for Justice and Fairness is that Justice is paying someone the correct price for an item while Fairness is using the same scale to determine the price for different people. If we measure some tea leaves and I pay some amount, but someone buying the exact same amount of the same tea after me is measured to be charged more, that would be considered unfair. Another example would be when someone cheats in a game, that's unfair because he's not playing by the same rules. One more example is a just decision would be to send criminals charged with the exact same crime to jail, but if the sentences are different lengths, then it can be considered unfair but not unjust depending on circumstances (for example two different judges, different levels of remorse, mercy, etc.).
    Why do we often consider unfairness to be the same as injustice? There are a few reasons. One is that we believe it is due to us to be judged on the same standard we perceive. This is common when it comes to siblings. If one child gets something, another may assume he should get it too because they are both children of the same parents (perceived standard), not necessarily because of something he did or need (actual standard). Another reason is that unfairness can lead to injustice. When someone cheats in a game, his opponent is not receiving his due respect in fair play and his due prize can be stolen from him.
    Now even though a standard is how we initially judge justice, we must be careful of the standards we use because they may be unjust. How is this possible? It's due to the nature of higher standards. Perhaps the best way of thinking of this is in terms of what justice is most often associated with; Law.
    According to a local law, punishment may be due to someone, but if that law contradicts a higher law, such as the constitution, then that would be opposed to real justice. This is important because lower laws often eliminate mercy and goodwill. I argued before that Mercy and Justice get along because Justice cares about order and balance. If someone is willing to forgive an injury, the relationship is put back into proper balance despite the perpetrator not paying restitution. Likewise, if a shop owner decides to give me a discount because of goodwill towards my father for some help he gave, it could be a fulfillment of justice. Of course, this idea of justice is dependent on using Love as the high standard.
    I argue that Love is the standard we should prioritize. I have written about the multiple definitions of love before, but in this case and pretty much every time I mention it, I'm referring to the caring definition by which "one wills the good of another." When you judge by using the standard of Love, then you judge based off the perfection of man that I argued for before in proving the universal moral code, and in doing so, you help advance the perfection of others. I like to think that that would be both fair and just.

With Love,
N. D. Moharo