Adderall Apocalypse

Labels

2010-06-25T14:17:00.001-06:00

I don't like to refer to people in terms of labels. This seems reductive to me. When one person refers to another person by a label, this doesn't magically transform the reality of who that person is. A person is not whatever label is applied to them. A person is a person. It's "ok" to use labels (e.g.) to simplify a person's position on an issue as long as the label-user (and his/her audience, if any) acknowledges this fact.

In a sense, it's "cool" for a group of people with common goals or ideals to refer to themselves with a label because (perhaps) it makes them feel like part of a "team," or a "club," or whatever. It might even increase their ability or desire to achieve that goal! Human beings are genetically tribal animals.

I often eschew taking sides, joining groups or teams, or labeling myself. I'm not even very fond of the "atheist, theist" labeling system. These aren't two monolithic, "black and white" divisions of people.

If I must label myself, I think an acceptable label would be "clarificationist." That's what I'm always pursuing: clarification.

Have I made myself "clear"?

Logic, "Common Sense," and "The Wrong End Of The Telescope"

2010-05-19T00:39:00.011-06:00

[Note: This is kind of a response to JohnJ's post "The Case Against Atheism," in a "roundabout" way.]

Lately, I've been trying to figure out how to deal with life and my problems rationally, and recognize emotion when it arises within me and prevent it from interfering with logic. For example, a lot of people seem to confuse "common sense" with logic or rationality. This is a mistake. It's actually very easy to "fool" common sense (see: the Monty Hall problem).

Another all-too-common mistake is "looking through the wrong end of the telescope." For example, I assume (and I'm sure that JohnJ does as well) that there is an "objective reality" that's observer-independent. The reason I assume this is that the universe existed before there were any observers (I'm sure JohnJ has his own reasons). I often make the analogy that this "objective reality" is like a picture. But it's obvious to me that the only way available to us to see "the big picture" is through science/reason: one "puzzle-piece" at a time. One of the positive aspects of this is that there are correction mechanisms, for example, if the pieces don't all fit together, then that's an indication that someone has made a mistake. I don't believe that anyone has or will show us "the big picture," so we have to try to piece it together ourselves.

It seems problematic to me that throughout history, people have claimed to have access to a "full" or at least "better" view of this "picture" through some other means than discovering it for themselves in verifiable ways. The claims of these people have often been shown to be false—earth is not the center of the universe, nor is it flat, nor is it sitting atop the backs of turtles or elephants or whatever—and don't even get me started on "mind-body dualism." [Personally], I'd be at least a bit reluctant to believe anything I was told about the missing parts of the puzzle by those who have been (continually) demonstrated to be incorrect regarding the pieces we do have.

Another way of "looking through the wrong end of the telescope" is to assume that the "law" governing the universe is some kind of "intention," i.e., to assume that things happen because they were "meant" to happen. The only "laws" governing the universe are the laws of physics, the fundamental forces, [blah, blah, blah...] I wonder, if the leaves on a tree could "think," if they would think that their existence was the "purpose" for the existence of the tree to which they were attached, or the existence of trees in general. I'm sure that the "odds" of any specific leaf appearing at any specific place on a tree are quite small. But probability isn't the "law" that governs the universe, either. The "law" is cause and effect (and let's throw some "quantum mechanics" in there "for good measure"). The interactions are just too complex for us [given current technology] to predict with absolute certainty what will happen next, so probability is a heuristic we've developed to help us achieve at least some degree of certainty.

So, for example, our explanation for how we got here should include as many events in this "cause and effect chain" as possible. Of course, we've made significant progress in this area. To say that we were the intended result of the big bang, one would (please correct me if I'm wrong) either have to project intentionality onto the laws of physics or claim that the "initial conditions" were intentionally set to produce us (which is what JohnJ seems to claim), but I think one would still need to produce an argument for how this makes sense, because, given the inefficiencies of the process, among other imperfections, it certainly doesn't make sense from an engineering perspective.

I'll grant that if the "initial conditions" of the universe were different, then the current state of the universe would be different as well (of course, this seems like a tautology). The problem I see here is that to claim that there was a purpose for the universe and that we are a part of that purpose, the question remains, "why us?"

In other words, it seems JohnJ's claim is that (P) if the "initial conditions" had been any different, then we wouldn't be here, (Q) "therefore," the "initial conditions" had to have been "set" intentionally. But it doesn't seem to me that the conclusion follows from the premise. The "other side of the coin" is that before we could have existed, a myriad of other events happened [read: had to happen] first that did not per se have anything to do with us, and that those events ocurred over the humanly inconceivable span of 13.7 billion years. You'll notice that the language I used in the previous sentence was that of "looking through the wrong end of the telescope." Perhaps I should have said something like, "Due to the 'initial conditions' of the universe, there was this really long, intelligence-less, intention-less, 'cause and effect' chain of events that resulted in the present state of the universe, including, among other things, us. What, if any, are the implications of that?" At this point, the argument becomes: There was [let's say, "for the sake of argument"] only one set of initial conditions that could have resulted in a universe where our existence was possible, but those initial conditions also resulted in all this other "stuff" that seems pointless and stupid if, indeed, the (or at least one "major") intention behind the "creation" of the universe was our eventual existence. Unfortunately, this no longer seems like an argument [not to be flippant, but you'd be better off saying that the "intention" of Hamlet was to tell a story about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern].

Note that my argument is not that "anything's possible given infinity," it's that a specific (causal) chain of events was possible given "the universe." In other words, a chain of events leading to the present indisputably did happen, and we should (eventually) be able to show ("beyond reasonable doubt") how it happened (through natural processes). At this point, the only question [I can see] is, "Why was it possible?" or "Why did it happen?" Of course, I wouldn't claim to know the answer. "Why" is an idea, and ideas are products of minds, which are products of brains, which are products of biology and evolution, which is a product of self-replicating molecules, which are products of chemistry... [blah, blah, blah]... my point is that minds [at least, "mind as we know it"¹] emerged long after the "big bang," so I'm skeptical that "why" "existed" before it. This is the point of [the idea of] "emergent order": that "order" emerges from "chaos" without intelligent direction, rather than through the process by which we, who are [presumably] intelligent, build things such as machines with a plan and a purpose beforehand. This is why [some] people say things like, "We don't need 'god' to explain [xyz]" (regardless of whether or not "God" would be a "better" explanation, which I don't think would be the case anyway, but that's a different argument).

Another question this "initial conditions" argument raises is, "What about the future?" Are future beings going to think that they were part of the "purpose" of the universe? Would there be any way to find out who (if anyone) was correct?

Here, I'll briefly note that even if there is a creator, it does not follow that there is an "objective morality" [*cough*Euthyphro*cough*]. I'll also note that I don't really have major problems with religion [ideology] per se. My [major] problems with [ideology] begin where it tries to act as a stop sign for inquiry (e.g., through "dogma"). I just think that any claims about "knowledge" or "truth" or "reality" should be verifiable.

¹ I'm not saying that there could not possibly exist any other type of "mind" than the mind we know about, but if a person proposes that it exists, it needs to be discovered, or at least coherently explained, before I could have a discussion about it with anyone. As I often say, "speculation = masturbation."

Another Formspring "Question"! Yay! >_>

2010-04-29T12:58:00.005-06:00

Q: you're an idiot

A: for future reference, please submit all *questions* in the form of a QUESTION! DICKHOLE! and I'm the idiot... ok. thanks!

Ask me anything

Dr. Manhattan on the Phenomenon of the Existence of Life

2010-04-05T15:00:00.005-06:00

Scene: Mars.
Dr. Manhattan to Laurie Juspeczyk:

In my opinion, [the existence of life is] a highly overrated phenomenon. Mars gets along perfectly without so much as a microorganism. See: there's the south pole beneath us now. No life. No life at all, but giant steps, ninety feet high, scoured by dust and wind into a constantly changing topographical map, flowing and shifting around the pole, in ripples ten thousand years wide.

Tell me... would it be greatly improved by an oil pipeline?

Formspring Me

2010-03-18T16:00:00.002-06:00

I'm bored. I'm sure there are "many" people who find me intriguing. Go ahead and ask questions. About anything. [except for "doc drop" questions!] http://formspring.me/AderalApocalyps

New YouTube Video: "PresentSex/LovePhilosophizing (Part 1)"

2010-03-11T12:02:00.007-07:00

Hey, dear readers! To make up for my 3-month absence, I'm sharing a video...

[transcript soon... and stay tuned for part 2... yes, there's a part 2...]

I'm Not Saying That Steven Crowder Condones Racism... [New Youtube Video]

2009-12-22T14:59:00.003-07:00

I've mentioned Steven Crowder here before. He's... well, this is how I usually put it: "Steven Crowder, budding conservative pundit/'comedian,' ostensible journalist, professional-troll-in-the-making, and all-around closet-case..." (just kidding about the "closet-case" part... he has a girlfriend. No, really! He told me himself! And we all know that every guy who has a girlfriend is totally, completely, 100% straight, right? Yeah... anyway...) I just caught him, let's say, not being very careful about the comments on his videos or his replies to them. Keep in mind, I'm always very [but reasonably] cautious about accusing people of racism, and I'm not accusing him of racism here. I'm not even accusing him of condoning racism, but... that's not the only thing going on here. But let me be clear in stating that I unequivocally condemn any hate directed at anyone, including [especially] people who are guilty of it themselves. I'm pretty sure I'll make an in-depth, follow-up blog/video on this issue soon.

Video: "Does Steven Crowder Condone Racism?"

[contents of description bar below for those of you who'd rather not click your mouse more times than absolutely necessary]

IMPORTANT: I do not hate Steven Crowder. I have no ill will toward him. I give no indication of that anywhere in this video. Please do not use this video as "justification" for threatening him or his family, friends, associates, or anyone else he might care about!

Update: Any questions about authenticity should be cleared up by the fact that Steven Crowder admitted that this video and the screenshot were authentic. Also, Steven asked me to take down the video. He confronted me about it on facebook chat. Without giving me enough time to consider, and because I'm such a nice guy, I indicated that I would remove the video, or at least wasn't going to keep it up permanently, because this question isn't even relevant to whether or not Steven Crowder is an accurate reporter, a demagogue, a liar, or anything else. But after conferring with others more experienced than myself, I've realized that this isn't just between him and me. For his part, he claims that he wasn't paying attention well enough and didn't see the racist parts of homertalk's comment. (Ron Paul Newsletter, anyone?) I would grant him that I see his case as highly plausible. I mean, it's difficult to comprehend the monumental stupidity that would have been required for him to have done this *intentionally.* But even assuming he's telling the truth, you could still say, "That's what you get for being the kind of act that racists happen to like," or "You made your bed, now sleep in it." It's even possible that this could be a distraction from "the real issues." But I'm pretty sure he still doesn't get it... you know... what the "real" issues are... one who asks for compassion and fairness when he seems to have such trouble showing it himself...

Steven Crowder's video

We already know Steven Crowder doesn't really care too much about facts or objectivity...

Steven Crowder video comments pages (the comment in question should be on the last or next to last page. As of 8:09 pm GMT, 22 December, 2009 Steven has deleted his own comment but not homertalk's)

Screen capture

Audra Shay

Orygyn's video

Obviously, the word "nigger" can mean different things in different contexts. Homertalk was obviously using the word as a slur. I'm not saying that Steven Crowder *noticed* the use of that slur or the slur right after it... [in fact, I, personally, would say it's most likely that he didn't]. I'm just putting this out there as a public service.

On a final note, again, I'd like to point out that even if Steven Crowder does condone racism, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not his reporting is factual. Those are two distinct questions.

[short link to this post: http://bit.ly/7YsXPA ]

TheAmazingAtheist: Braodcastings of Blogtv For Make Benefit Glorious Website of FreeSpeechVids.com

2009-12-20T00:05:00.006-07:00

theamazingatheist- Broadcast your self LIVE

Donate to FreeSpeechVids!

Oh... wait... nevermind... don't donate to FreeSpeechVids... sorry! nothing to see here, people! move the fuck along! :-(

"It's the End of the World As We Know It!"

2009-12-17T23:37:00.006-07:00

...and I feel fine. Anyway... in case you didn't know, twitter is down. Everybody panic. As a public service, I typed "twitter" into my google search engine for you all. According to the almighty interwebz, some "Iranian Cyber Army" has apparently hacked the world's most [potentially] superficial social networking/media site. Updates at 11... please stand by... I got my radar up and my finger on the pulse of the universe... right...

I should mention that before I typed "twitter" into the google search field, I typed in my twitter handle, "AderalApocalyps." I thought one of the results was quite amusing. You see, it was about two months ago that I had my first discussion about atheism on twitter with JohnJ (who I've mentioned several times here). It seemed as though, at the time, he had some misconceptions about atheism. Somehow, Austin Cline of atheism.about.com became aware of the twitstorm and contributed his two cents. This is the "amusing" search result I mentioned. Enjoy!

By the way, please leave a comment letting me know how you're coping with the "twit-apocalypse." Thanks.

I'm Speechless [New "Infomercial"]

2009-12-17T13:15:00.005-07:00

I don't know if you've seen a lot of infomercials lately, but many of the newer ones contain some not-at-all-veiled sexual references. I mean, you can't even call them "double-entendres" anymore! I think this might be the most blatant example I've seen thus far. There's nothing wrong with this, but I guess I'm just used to some level of subtlety. It seems like the current trend in this variety of marketing is to [continually] explore [new frontiers in] how anti-subtle a commercial can become. It's like an arms-race of anti-subtlety! I'm not sure whether or not I think it's funny, though. Maybe I'll get back to you on that...

Seriously: "I need a handjob dot com". Mind-boggling. Not that I don't need a handjob... but I digress.

[h/t: Martin Pribble. thanks! :-D lol.]

EDIT: ok... I think I get this now. This type of product used to be called "as seen on TV," and because the commercials were played on tv, they had to conform to certain FCC standards of propriety, but the standards on teh Interwebz are much looser, so it's not surprising that the manufacturers of these products have since been trying so hard to "see what they can get away with." ...but I'm sure you already had that figured out.

New YouTube Video: "Thoughts on Slavery and the Bible"

2009-12-15T00:51:00.008-07:00

For your convenience, here's the "script" I was loosely working from:

Hey! Adderall Apocalypse here! The other day I was in TogetherForPeace/Jack's blogtv room and one of the things we were talking about was the Bible's stance on slavery. Basically, what he was saying was that the Bible (NT) does provide a basis for the abolition of slavery. But he says that the New Testament writers who talked about slavery weren't very concerned with the political activism; they weren’t very concerned with telling the governments of that time that slavery was wrong and they should abolish the practice. They were more concerned with "freeing peoples' spirits." Well, first of all, I don't believe that people have "spirits" the way Jack believes that we do. Secondly, it doesn't really make sense... if God exists and is all-powerful, I would think he’d be able to free slaves, but instead, all he decided to do was, what, make them feel better, in effect? I think that if I was a slave, I’d rather be not a slave than just be made to feel like Jesus loves me or whatever, but that’s just my perspective... what do I know?

So it seems fairly clear that if God exists, he cares a lot more about "cosmic justice" than actual justice here on earth. Obviously, I don’t believe in God or "cosmic justice." I suppose it makes sense that if God and the afterlife is eternal, this life would be less significant—but don’t you see how logically unworkable this is? That God created an entire universe so that 13.7 billion years later, he could insert souls into some monkeys living on a rock in the middle of nowhere so they could live for 70 years, if that, and then, afterwards, face eternal judgment? And then either be with him forever or be tormented forever for their so-called sins? Isn’t it obvious that the afterlife is an idea people made up to combat their fear of death!?
(anyway)
Another thing he said (and I find that a lot of Christians think this) was that the abolitionist movement was largely Christian; [and] they were inspired to become abolitionists largely because of the Bible. But I think that almost everyone back then was a Christian, right? So there were just as many people who were pro-slavery who could use the Bible as justification for owning slaves as there were who were using the Bible to support their opposition to slavery. So I think it would be more instructive to look at the effects of the enlightenment on the views of the people back then regarding slavery because that was an important period of time for the development of the concept of rights. Now, I don't necessarily believe in "rights," but that's a completely different video. The point is that you're not going to see rights being mentioned or discussed anywhere in the Bible. What you'll see in the Bible is, for example, "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL," because God said so, but the real reason for the law against stealing in the Bible is that it’s disruptive to a society, especially above certain levels. This should be obvious to you. So that's as far as the Bible goes: "don't steal." Maybe from that, you could extrapolate that if you can't steal another person's property then maybe a person has a right to their own property, and you can go from there, and I suppose you could do the same with other "rights" like life and liberty, but it seems to contradict the idea that God is the one who wrote the book when, (I’d assume that) he knew all that stuff, but we had to figure it out for ourselves. It’s almost like we didn’t need God or the Bible to come up with those ideas. I would, of course, suggest that this is the case. [links on what the Bible has to say that could be interpreted as being relevant to the issue of slavery]:

Does God approve of slavery?

What the Bible says about slavery

The infamous religioustolerance.org page on slavery in the Bible

You’ll notice that you can use parts of the Bible to argue either way. You might be tempted to say that this is a paradox. But as I’ve said in my blog, I have proposed that there is no paradox, only contradiction. We can argue about that later, I’m sure...

My point is the main verse that Jack was emphasizing in his blogtv room says that in the kingdom of God "there is neither slave nor free, male nor female," etc., so from that verse, the next logical step is that we are all equal in the eyes of God, and the next logical step FROM THAT would be that slavery is wrong. Ok. Fair enough. I would think that if God really were against slavery, he would have just come right out and said it, but we can go with your explanation... but if slavery is wrong and the Bible is opposed to slavery, it just seems unfortunate that nobody figured that out until 1700 years after the Bible was written.

That reminds me: another thing people like to say is that there are absolute moral laws and, therefore, there must be a moral law giver, and that moral law giver is God. But if you look at history, you’ll see that culture dictates morality, not the other way around (not that I necessarily believe in morality, but again, different video). The system of morality in the Old Testament, for example, says that eating shellfish is an abomination (The NIV says, "you are to detest" shellfish, but whatever). But then, later on, some other people came along and tried to figure out what Old Testament laws they were still supposed to follow and which they could ignore. They split them up into three different categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, but just from reading the Bible, how can you tell that there needs to be three different categories? There doesn't seem to me [to be] any obvious way to distinguish between them. But even if there were, it still seems inconsistent. Did God change his mind? Does he do that? I thought he was perfect, right? Again, you can find parts of the Bible to support either side of that argument. [links]:

Does God Repent?

"does god change his mind?"

Thanks for [reading]...

Fuck You, Twitter!!! [Or: Fuck You, Humanity!!!]

2009-12-07T12:51:00.010-07:00

Twitter is down right now for scheduled maintenance? Are you fucking kidding me!? It's the middle of the day in all parts of the U.S.! But, hey, don't worry! They should be back within 30 minutes... which is only a motherfucking eternity in terms of twitter time!

EDIT: 12:54 PM MST. And we're back! ok. 3 minutes. not so bad... (no, I'm calm... I've been calm this whole time, what's wrong with you...)

RE-EDIT: 12:31 AM MST ["the next day"]. I've decided to take a short break from twitter. In all likelihood, this will merely mean that I'll just end now instead of being on there for another 4 hours before falling into bed. Whatever. But who knows. The reason for this is that the person I talk to the most on twitter (and the internet in general), with whom I disagree about a lot of things, but still usually enjoy talking to (JohnJ, who you might remember from a previous blog) mentioned "Palin Derangment Syndrome" tonight, which I granted exists. But then I showed him this essay by Cenk Uygur titled "The Irrefutable Stupidity of Sarah Palin" (ouch! Obviously, Uygur wasn't going for subtlety!). This was John's reaction to the essay:

That's an excellent example of Palin Derangement Syndrome. Thanks.

To be fair, I suggested that he send me a full-length message detailing why he believes Cenk suffers from PDS. I'll let you know if he responds.

I'm considering... well, I don't know. The fate of humanity is starting to look pretty bleak if two seemingly/supposedly¹ rational people can operate from two completely different conceptions of reality. I'm almost too stunned to be able to speak right now. Anyway, I'll let you know my next course of action. Thanks for reading, MOTHERFUCKAZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!

¹Look: John is supposed to be one of those "sane" conservatives. Maybe I should just stop giving him "the benefit of the doubt." I don't know. I feel like I can actually discuss many of "the issues" with him intelligently. But that's not the point! The point is that he seems more intelligent and rational, let's say, than your "average" conservative. So if (emphasis on "if"!) I were to conclude that he were "crazy" and it wasn't worth discussing certain issues with him, then I'd also have to conclude that there are tens of millions more Americans who may be even crazier and even less "worthy" of discussing those issues with whoever among us is sane. I'll remind you: I'm not intending to be dismissive. I'm only using this language because John basically called Cenk Uygur crazy, at least in that one area, by "accusing" him of having "PDS." So John is the one who was being dismissive (or if you wanted to be more gracious, you might say that he was being dismissive, "too," since he might have thought that Uygur was being "dismissive" of Palin). But is it really such an either/or thing? Could there exist a reality in which neither of them were crazy? or both of them were crazy? OK! This is starting to drive me crazy! Anyway! This is the bottom line: I find Palin (let's say) unimpressive in many areas. As far as I can see, she still has a lot of work cut out for her if she wants to be a serious "contender" in the political "arena." (OMFG! I can't stand the sports analogies that have crept into our political language!) My experience listening to Cenk Uygur is that he usually has a firm grasp on/knowledge of the issues. Maybe I could say the same thing about John, but the problem remains that we're seeing two different things when we look at reality! How can we overcome that!?

"What's Wrong With Me!?"

2009-12-05T15:22:00.008-07:00

Hello, readers! If you follow my twitter or youtube activity, you'd know I'm majorly addicted to the "fringeelements"¹ (real name: Ryan Faulk, I guess) channel on youtube. For those of you who are unfamiliar with his work, I'll provide some background. He could be classified as an anarchist, but it would be more accurate to say (and he says this himself) that he supports an "emergent" government. I'm a lover of ideas. I want to hear as wide a variety of ideas and viewpoints as I can. It doesn't matter how "out there" they are as long as they're not ideas that I've heard before and have seen enough relevant evidence to conclude that they're stupid/wrong. So I don't necessarily agree with everything Ryan says,² but a lot of what he says is new to me (relatively, at least). However, a lot of other people on youtube (TheAmazingAtheist, Thunderf00t, HowTheWorldWorks, etc...) don't seem to like what Ryan has to say or they casually dismiss him or whatever. Anyway... because of this, I've been asking certain people who are critical of Ryan, "what's wrong with me?" Here's the exchange that occurred when I asked this of twitter/blog "friend" JohnJ (who I believe agrees with Ryan about a lot of things, although I'm not sure). I've found that a major source of disagreement I usually have with John is that he seems to be culturally conservative, whereas I'm basically culturally "liberal," I guess. No, wait. That's not a very meaningful way of putting it. (Not to sound condescending, but) what I really mean is that I prefer solutions to social problems based on evidence rather than tradition and that although I recognize the importance of individual/personal responsibility, I also realize that there are a lot of things that are beyond the control of the individual.³ Anyway... without further ado, here's the transcript of our "conversation":

AderalApocalyps hey, @johnj2427. I can't stop watching fringeelements (fka confederalsocialist) on youtube. what's wrong with me? lolz...1 day ago from web

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps What's wrong with you? Well, I could start with your blind faith in government to solve all our problems.1 day ago from TweetDeck

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps And then there's the tendency to group everyone who doesn't think like you do under one label.1 day ago from TweetDeck

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Also, there's your belief that if something isn't the way you think it should be, it's because people are stupid bigots.1 day ago from TweetDeck

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps And there's your arrogant refusal to acknowledge that no one is good enough to rule another without their consent.1 day ago from TweetDeck

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps And lest we forget, there's your belief that you know everything and people not as smart as you are idiots.1 day ago from TweetDeck

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 ok... 1st of all (to paraphrase Dara O'Briain), I don't think I know everything. If I did, I would stop...1 day ago from web

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps And how could I forget your insistence that ppl aren't responsible for their choices b/c we're all just chemical reactions?1 day ago from TweetDeck

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Then there's the juvenile tone you adopt when you mock someone because you don't understand them.1 day ago from TweetDeck

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps If you want a more detailed list, it's going to have to wait.1 day ago from TweetDeck

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 um... I'm looking forward to that(?) btw... I'd like to see quotes in your analysis too (in context would be a plus...)1 day ago from web

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps But I really should include your belief that Christians are the only group in history to have never suffered persecution.1 day ago from TweetDeck

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 for the record, that's not what I believe. I believe that right now, in the US, Christian persecution is less common than "avg."1 day ago from web

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps I don't disagree there. In fact, I think I demonstrated that on my blog recently.1 day ago from TweetDeck

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Right now, in the US, Christian persecution is less common than average: http://is.gd/5bIjh1 day ago from TweetDeck

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps But what does that have to do with Peter being crucified on an upside-down cross?1 day ago from TweetDeck

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 um, 1st off, I don't think I claimed it did (2ndly... he wasn't. but I digress...)1 day ago from web

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 idk ur experience growing up, but churches I went 2 put alot of (I'd evn say "excessive") emphasis on James 1:2 & Matt 10:22, etc1 day ago from web

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 did I do/say something wrong? Do I hafta sleep in the doghouse tonight? Can't understand why ur mischaracterizing me like this...1 day ago from web

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Well, you asked. If I made a mistake, I apologize for it and want to correct the record.1 day ago from TweetDeck

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 I mean, let's keep in mind... you were responding to my admission of partiality toward videos made by a guy who's an anarchist!1 day ago from web

JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Oh. I thought you were asking more generally. Silly me.1 day ago from TweetDeck

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 ultimate:-P... anyway, yeah, srsly... I'm addicted... ha-ha-ha...1 day ago from web

AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 just blindsided me... not fair bro... (I'm still a little dazed... but maybe that's because I haven't eaten really...)1 day ago from web

Ok. Still there, boys and girls? Was that intense, or what!? I don't even have to respond to most of John's "statements" in this exchange as, like I said, [many of them] were rather obvious and blatant mischaracterizations. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was trying to have fun or make a point or something. Another explanation is that he might have been slightly upset at a comment I made on a video by conservative, um, "comedian," Steven Crowder,⁴ in which he propagated the myth that the peace symbol was a representation of the Apostle Peter hanging from an upside-down cross (not to mention the myth that Peter was actually hung on an upside-down cross... or the myth that there was an Apostle Peter, but, anyway, "that's neither here nor there"...). One thing I said in my comment was, "This video wasn't so bad until you went full-throttle with the Christian Persecution Complex bullshit." Oops! I don't know. That might have hit a nerve. But I was quick to clarify what I meant by that when given the opportunity! In any event, I'm going to try not to think that he really sincerely [literally] believes what he was saying about me. That would just be too ridiculous.

Thanks for reading! Happy trials! Especially, have a good time really trying to understand the positions of people you have discussions with! ;-D

¹He used to make videos as "confederalsocialist," but that account was suspended, for some reason. So, file another one in the "fuckyoutube" section!

²This is, of course, not even that important! Can we as a society please get over the idea that "I like you" means "I agree with you" or "I agree with you" means "you're smart"? For example, I usually find twitter/blog "friend" JohnJ, who I will bring up again later on in this post, personable, and think he's probably smart in a lot of areas, even though I'm sure I disagree with him well over half of the time. I think, if there are any significant conflicts between us, it might be over our views of science, which is important, but I think that's something we can work on. Of course, regarding Ryan, something that might be a major caveat is that he was at one point, unfortunately, a "white nationalist," or at least claimed to be one. But I think that he can be forgiven for that because he has since renounced white nationalism, and explained his reasoning behind doing so to my satisfaction, at least. As I said in an earlier blog, I don't like to jump to conclusions that people are racist. For example, I wouldn't assume that John is racist just because of the baggage of the loaded wording of the title of his blog: "A Johnny Reb in a Yankee World [Subtitle: Bearing Witness To The End Of

America

Because Someone Has To Do It.]" Why do I find that title so disconcerting? I honestly don't care about political correctness.

³Oh, well excuse the fuck out of me for trying to have a little fun at the expense of fairness. I hope I'm not offending anyone reading this and I'm certainly not directing this at John himself, but you have to realize that one of the dangers of playing at the beach is that you risk getting sand in your vagina. So my characterization of John here was unfair. At least I'm doing him the service of admitting it now and attempting to explain his actual position: I'm sure John would say that he's very much a proponent of pragmatic, evidence-based solutions to social problems. He merely happens to believe (on faith, no less! *gasp*!) that more freedom is always the best way to solve problems (although that might be an over-simplification). I would tend to agree, but one area of contention might be in regards to what "more freedom" actually means. Then there's the complicating factor of "conflicting freedoms," which I don't even want to get into right now. What I gather from what he's written on the topic is that what John actually believes about tradition is that a practice or belief or policy becomes tradition because it has "stood the test of time" and "works" in some way, in the pragmatic sense of the word. I would say that what I believe about tradition is exemplified in "Weird Al" Yankovic's brilliant holiday jingle, "Weasel Stomping Day." Incidentally, as a side note, I would also say that what I believe about social norms is exemplified in the Twilight Zone episode, "Eye of the Beholder."

⁴I'm not going to provide a link to this video. You can find it yourself if you care so much. I don't care if you think Steven Crowder is funny or whatever. I don't. It's fine with me if you're a fan of his, but I just can't take him seriously... or comedically (right, not a real word, I know). A lot of humor has to do with making accurate observations. Hence the phrase, "it's funny 'cause it's true." It's hard for me to laugh at a guy's jokes who I believe consistently makes (I'll be nice here) inaccurate observations. But I was planning on writing more on that later...

Hello, Technorati!

2009-11-24T18:21:00.001-07:00

AMK2X7MTV3AT
I am now ready for verification. Thanks...

There Are No Sound, Rational Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

2009-11-24T17:21:00.009-07:00

After looking at some of the reaction to my last political blog, I realized that this isn't acknowledged often enough. I'm not saying this is an absolute truth, just an observation. That said, I often think there's not enough of an effort to understand why people oppose gay marriage. I don't want to seem pedantic, but I feel as though I must break down this issue as clearly and basically as possible.

Not to offend anyone, but in all sincerity, expounding arguments against people who oppose gay marriage is a bit like arguing against religious people or creationists. They're wrong, but there are many levels at which a person can be wrong. A person may incorporate many correct ideas into a worldview or philosophy that is fundamentally wrong, and vice versa. Furthermore, unless you know a person well, it's difficult to tell whether or not they're being intellectually honest about being wrong. With that, let's just dive right in...

All of the arguments against gay marriage I've ever heard (though I do not rule out the possibility that there are arguments I have not heard that might be sound and rational) can be categorized one of four ways:

Religious arguments¹
Appeals to tradition²
"Slippery-slope" and other idiotic, fear-based arguments
"Social-engineering" arguments

Furthermore, in my relentless effort to be masochistically thorough, (and though some of them may seem like strawmen, I assure you that you could find at least some people who will need to be convinced of any given item on this list), and as a reminder to everyone just how far the discussion needs to progress in (at least parts of) the U.S., let me assert that the following items have been established far (miles, light years, even!) beyond reasonable doubt:

Attraction and a person's sexual orientation are not "choices," neither can they be influenced simply by being around people of another sexual orientation.

There is no "cure" for homosexuality (just as there is no "cure" for heterosexuality).

There is no "agenda" to try to "turn your kids gay."

God is not going to pour judgment upon us if we legally recognize gay marriage.

The "gay lifestyle"³ may be something of a "choice," but not only is that completely irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, but also, I find it difficult to believe that a married gay person would even be able to maintain that "lifestyle."

The idea that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is not discriminatory just because "gays can still marry people of the opposite gender" is fallacious. In what other area is there mandated by law any similar type of "one-size-fits-all" policy?⁴ Doesn't that sound a little communist to you?

On a related note to the previous item, it is unreasonable to suggest that a gay person who wants to get married should just marry someone of the opposite gender. How would you like it if you were forced to marry someone to whom you were not (nor possibly could be) attracted?

Gay marriage (and the struggle for the legal recognition thereof) is analogous to interracial marriage ("and [...] thereof") because in both cases, we're talking about a pair of consenting adults.⁵

On a related note to the previous item, there is not a "straight line" (nor, I would assert, any clear or reasonable or probable or plausible pathway) between legalizing gay marriage and "legalizing marriages" other than those between two consenting adults, and to claim that there is such a "slippery slope" is propaganda and a scare-tactic, completely detached from reality.

In the long run, anything other than full marriage-equality (as long as there is something called marriage that is recognized by any level of government) for consenting adult gay couples is just "separate-but-equal-2.0" and is in direct conflict with both our founding documents (you know, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and stuff) and the idea(ls) of America, not to mention that mantra they indoctrinate children to recite daily in our public "education" camps (which, if I may add, was written by a SOCIALIST!!!1!11cos(0)).

This issue is not about obtaining "moral approval" of gay couples (or homosexuality in general) from anyone, although that couldn't hurt. Nor is it a partisan issue. It's about equality under the law (equal recognition, treatment, rights, and responsibilities).

Ok. Now that we have those items settled, let's continue...

Too often, same-sex marriage-proponents (SSMPs) ignore categories 2 – 4 of the opposing arguments or conflate them with the religious category, which, among other things, gives cover to people who use those types of arguments, allowing them to say things like, "Hey, I'm not religious! Don't pigeonhole me with those people! There are other reasons to oppose gay marriage!" But that doesn't mean there are any good reasons!

Another practice that is too common is for SSMPs to accuse gay marriage-opponents of hatred. Again, I don't want to be or appear pedantic, but people should always be careful about accusing other people of things like hatred (or racism) because it generally shuts down discussion and escalates tensions. In any event, no one should jump to such conclusions about anyone else (Joe Wilson, Sgt. Crowley, Barack Obama, anyone?). Besides, you don't have to hate gays to want to deny them the right to marry a fellow mutually consenting adult, [just like a person doesn't have to be a racist to be an asshole (again, see the example of Sgt. Crowley)]. We should be able to recognize that these traits aren't necessarily connected. We should realize that everyone is human and not demonize anyone over a simple disagreement (or even a disagreement resulting from bad faith or ignorance). On the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to call people out when we have solid evidence that they're lying (or being intellectually dishonest, or hateful, or racist, or whatever).

Fear can be a very powerful political tool. There are many people who seem to believe that allowing gay people to marry each other will have catastrophic social consequences. Well, as it just so happens, I saw a post on Andrew Sullivan's blog a few months ago (in response to a post by Steve Chapman in the reason.com blog) in which he addressed that concern, and I can only say that such fears are (at best) wildly over-hyped.

Some people seem to think that the main reason people get married is to raise children, but that ignores all the other reasons people get married: love, security/stability (financial or otherwise), etc. Some people seem to think that society will be better off if only straight couples are allowed to raise children or (at the other end of this segment of the spectrum of possible views on this topic) that, all other things being equal, children will be better off if straight couples raise them (there are, of course, positions in between those two). Even if this is true, which I doubt, it is not a compelling reason to deny gay couples either the right to get married or the right to raise/adopt children (or to damn children who could otherwise be part of a family to childhood as orphans).

Another point of contention in this issue regards implementation. The "standard" thinking on the pro- side is that the "definition" of marriage should be expanded to include couples of the same gender (where it's not already, remember, this is a state-by-state deal...), although there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to do this. There are generally three ways: ⁽¹⁾popular vote, ⁽²⁾legislation, ⁽³⁾state supreme court decision. This can become complicated, depending on how far down the rabbit-hole you want to go (in terms of analysis). I could possibly write an entire blog post on this topic alone.⁶

The "standard libertarian" thinking on this issue is that marriage should be "privatized," which means that two (or more) people can formulate whatever agreement or have whatever ceremony they want among themselves, and the government will not be involved at any level. Then, if the people want, they can ask that the government sanction or recognize unions in some way. The details don't really matter as long as there's no discrimination of the aforementioned types. This seems, to me, like a better solution, although I've never heard anyone, anywhere, actually propose anything like this.⁷

Let's remember my main point here. On the most fundamental level, I'm not talking about implementation or federalism or any of the other minutiae accompanying this issue. The most fundamental point I have to make is that gays are just as human, just as American, as the rest of us. The love between two gay people in a committed relationship is in no way inferior to that between two straight people in a similarly committed relationship. Neither is there any reason that their relationship should be considered inferior (or different) by the law.

We must acknowledge that the most important consideration in this discussion is empathy. Sometimes it's easy to believe that certain people (let's call them "conservatives") lack this characteristic. They so often emphasize personal responsibility, (which is, of course, important), but sometimes (seemingly) at the expense of acknowledging the possibility that everyone may face circumstances beyond their control. But I know (or believe) that most of them do take that into account. I sometimes think that if everyone who opposed gay marriage really knew gay people with whom they could empathize (specifically, gay couples who wanted to get married), their opposition would fade. Is that too much to expect?

¹These can be dismissed out of hand, as a government policy based explicitly on a principle from any religion or combination of religions would be a clear violation of "separation of church and state," or the "establishment clause," if you want to get technical.

²These, too, can be dismissed assuming we've established that a proposed policy is more pragmatic than the current, "traditional" policy, and/or that the protection of human rights/liberties necessitates the abolition of the tradition in question, which is certainly the case in the present example!

³For now, let's give people who use this term the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're talking about something that actually exists in the real world, however stereotypical or cartoony or strawmanish it sounds.

⁴Well, in hindsight, I suppose that characterizing the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples as a "one-size-fits-all" policy isn't "entirely accurate." Perhaps I stated this idea more accurately in a previous post:

Legally, in the U.S., marriage is simply a contract (that happens to come with many privileges and responsibilities). I see no reason and can think of no other example in which we deny two individuals the right to engage in a voluntary legal contract that harms no one!

⁵We can talk about recognizing unions between pairs of consenting adults who are, for example, closely related to each other when there's a demand for it, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

⁶Ok. I'll take a stab at this. To those who think that rights should be determined by popular vote, I must ask, "How would you feel if you had to ask 260 million people for permission to marry the person you love?"

⁷On a related note, why aren't there more libertarians in this country? Or are there a lot of people who are libertarian, but just don't know it? Someone help me out here! Thanks.

And Now For Something A Little Less Serious (Menstruation)

2009-11-22T17:21:00.009-07:00

This is a reply to a post (about something called "The Diva Cup") by my blog-pal Rebekah over at jauntydame.com, whom I love... a lot... like really... like... "♥" status... like seriously... Anyway... I was going to post this directly as a comment on her page, but then I thought that maybe it's not the kind of thing her readers want to see. So if you want, read that post first (but no trolling, ok!?), and then come back and read the rest of this one. Thanks...

First of all, I'd like to thank you for sharing this! I'm so glad you're comfortable talking openly and honestly about things like this. As a student/researcher of the universe, I am continuously fascinated by the inner workings of the human species of gene-transportation unit (in addition to all other varieties of gene-transportation unit, of course)! I find it a little frustrating that some people seem so disgusted by such conversations. I never look down upon an opportunity to improve my understanding of how (any aspect of) the universe operates!

Now if you'll please forgive me for being such a terrible person... can't... resist... "immature"... humor... agh...
That was quite a gushing review of this product!

Mr. Garrison: "I'm sorry, but I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die." (South Park)

Wow! This product gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "two girls, one cup"!

I can't wait to see "Two Divas, One Cup: The Musical"!

The difference between the two sizes (and the fact that you use the larger size) doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. As Kid Bengala has said, "The elasticity of the vagina is something surprising!"

This goes to show you how much Freud needed to learn about women... If only he had known how many more nerve-endings there are in the clitoris than the vagina... oh well, he could be a real douche sometimes...

And Now For a Random Quote From the Pharyngula Files!

2009-11-20T12:33:00.004-07:00

One blog I read often is Pharyngula. One of the boxes in the sidebar always contains a random quote of the "religious nutjob" variety. When I went there today, I instantly recognized the quote:

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked, his wrath towards you burns like fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night, that you was[sic] suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep.
["Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," preached July 8, 1741. In Ola Elizabeth Winslow, ed., Jonathon Edwards: Basic writings (New York: New American Library, 1966) p. 159.]

Yes. Jonathan Edwards. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Always held in high regard in our household. We were all big fans of that "fire and brimstone" stuff. Special thanks for contributing to my childhood/adolescent immersion into Puritanism, Tabletalk Magazine!

Obviously, this sermon is completely ridiculous, but maybe you wouldn't know that if you underwent similar immersion through the entirety of your upbringing. We can't judge people, but we must challenge one another to question our beliefs. If something is true, then it should be independently verifiable.¹ In our search for truth, though we may be dependent upon the (again, independently verifiable) work of others, we must remember that "authority" means absolutely nothing.

¹There may be some who claim that "nothing can be completely independent!" This is a different discussion, but for our present purposes, I reject that claim as false, or at least irrelevant. Don't believe me? I'm not stopping you from looking into it!

The Passion of The Prejean, According to St. Meghan

2009-11-18T11:49:00.019-07:00

Hello again, dear readers! It's been a long time since I last blogged. Where have I been? Well, twitter. Yes, *sigh*.

One person I "follow" on twitter is Meghan McCain. I was reading her article in The Daily Beast on Monday regarding conservatives' treatment of her in comparison to Carrie Prejean. There were a few points I wanted to discuss, but couldn't fit into 140 characters. (I have other topics lined up about which to blog, but this one is actually sort of timely!)

Ms. McCain rightly notes the hypocrisy of those who defend conservatives who are guilty of actions for which they would condemn everyone else (of course, I would say that the same goes for all other political/ideological groups). Speaking of this, two words: Bristol Palin. I'm sure others have observed that if it had been a 17-year-old daughter of Obama who was pregnant out of wedlock, many conservatives would have become apoplectic! Not even considering how they would have reacted if the pregnancy had been terminated! But Palin's defenders were tripping over themselves trying to "justify" the circumstances of her unwed-teenage-pregnancy. "um! But at least her and the father are going to get married! oh, no? um! at least she chose not to have an abortion!" What was that? "Chose"? First of all, yes, there were people using this language. It seems strange, considering that these are the same people who do not consider abortion an option, who say things like, "It's not a choice! It's a child!" Secondly, if you are "pro-life," and you think there's a moral equivalence between abortion and murder, why give anyone special recognition for not murdering a child!? I never hear people congratulating mothers for not committing infanticide!¹ But I digress... I fully agree with Ms. McCain that it sends the wrong message to justify making a sex or masturbation tape with/for another person on the grounds that you are in love with that person. It's the height of disingenuousness to justify an action you would otherwise condemn on such shaky grounds. Of course, she wasn't the first Republican to try to do something like that... To be fair, Ms. Prejean did appear contrite for what she admitted was the "biggest mistake of [her] life." Oh wait, sorry, make that the "eight biggest mistakes of her life." Did she really think that producing these tapes was such a huge mistake before they became public knowledge? There's no way of knowing for sure, but I'm skeptical.

Look: Let's be clear: In contrast with Ms. McCain, I neither condemn nor condone the production of sex tapes or the act of sex per se. I, in fact, have taken and distributed nude photographs of myself for, let's say, non-artistic purposes (upon request, of course, and I was "smart" enough to obscure my face). I don't envision the release of these photos as having political consequences for me since I'm being so open about it. (But honesty often has its own penalties...) As I may have said before, the ethical guidelines I try to follow are based primarily in empathy and what I "do unto others," as well as maintaining a consistency between who I am in public and in private.² Under this paradigm, the only major "sins" [I can think of at this time] are: harming or restricting the freedom of others,³ violating prior agreements, and hypocrisy. An act such as the production of a sex tape would be "wrong" only if a person had previously agreed not to produce one or if s/he had publicly stated that such an act was immoral and had condemned others who had participated in such activities.

So the question is: Is Ms. Prejean a hypocrite? Yes, of course! Taking her full history of media appearances in context, Ms. Prejean's personal stance against same-sex marriage and in favor of "opposite marriage" is merely a sliver of a worldview that highly regards "traditional morality" and seeks to defend it from the threats that the continuing modernization of society poses against it with its "equality" (pah!) and willingness to accept "science" and "reality" (hmph!). The very acts Ms. Prejean recorded herself performing (in fact, any kind of sexuality outside the shackles of holy matrimony) are anathema to this entire worldview!

So why are people like Sean Hannity so vehemently defending this young woman? Sorry, wrong question. Why are they continuing to give her a political platform even though anyone can see that she's completely unqualified? Wait, who am I talking about? Prejean or McCain? Anyway... I think it's fairly obvious that although, yes, certain people said some mean things

Somebody Get Ms. Prejean a Crown of Thorns, For Christ's Sake!

about Ms. Prejean (and I am certainly not trying to justify that!), she's taking the victim act way too far. Her main function in the current media storyline is to corroborate the narrative fabricated by the "right-wing" (or "traditionalists" or whatever label into which you want to shoehorn them) that traditionalists ("us" or "we") are the victims. Then they frame the issue such that those who want to change the status quo ("them" or "they") are not opposed to an unjust system, but are primarily interested in "ramming 'their' radical agenda down 'our' throats." This, enabling America's Christian/Conservative Persecution Complex, is part of the Right's own brand of identity politics and is just another way for those who have power to use the sheeple as pawns to further their own agendas.

Ms. McCain further raises the entirely valid point that traditionalists treat her very differently from how they treat Ms. Prejean. They definitely directed a lot more criticism at McCain for photographing herself when she happened to be wearing a tank-top (and I don't even need to mention their opinion about her regarding the fact that she's honest about enjoying sex! *gasp*!) than there was at Prejean who, let's remember, even before the masturbation tapes or the nude photos, participated in a competition that involved traipsing around on a stage in a bikini on national television! Surely you can see not only the hypocrisy, but also the tribalism here. Prejean's actions are justified in spite of cognitive dissonance because "she's on 'our' side!" and, "The Christian values that she has cherry-picked to defend are similar to mine!" And because McCain chooses to espouse a set of values that is different in certain areas, traditionalists treat her the same as any other non-tribe-member.

We could further ask whether or not it's "right" or "brave" to stand up for certain values for no other reason than that they just happen to be the values a person was raised to revere. Of course, the answer is a resounding "no!" I think that bravery, much like other virtues, requires that one make informed decisions and really understand (or at least make a sincere effort to understand) why one takes any specific position. The traditionalist does not stand for truth, but for dogma. Dogma is an enemy of truth. Any fool can parrot lines they were indoctrinated to believe, but it's really better and ultimately, far more rewarding for a person to make the effort to seek the truth for oneself. This is something that I don't really think either McCain or Prejean have seriously attempted. But McCain is at least somewhat better off because some of her values just so happen to be "the right ones" (this is a bit subjective, but, basically, what I mean is that her stance on gay marriage, at least, is on "the right side of history").

So should we criticize Ms. Prejean? I would say that we should only
criticize her as long as she has her undeserved platform and even then, only for her shallow understanding of the issues and her bankruptcy of core-principles (governing her own actions) and her ignorance and her hypocrisy and her opportunism and... What I'm saying is that I don't think we should engage in personal attacks against people. We should first engage people on their ideas and their words. Prejean is, of course, a person who has no business being a part of the discussion on any political issue, but that's because she hasn't done her homework. She hasn't performed (and, let's be frank, might not even be capable of taking on) the research or analysis necessary to come to a reasoned conclusion on any of the major political issues of the day. But no one should call her a "cunt" or a "dumb bitch," regardless of whether or not those are accurate characterizations of her (because, well, that's just not nice...). That said, let me emphasize that Perez Hilton clearly claims³ that he was not upset with her opposition to same-sex marriage, contrary to the narrative of the right-wing/"family-values" echo-chamber, but with the complete lack of grace and intelligence with which she answered the question. In addition, I think he was right about the answer she should have given if she did, in fact, have "half a brain." After all, he didn't directly ask her for her opinion on same-sex marriage, but she gave it to him anyway. I guess she thought that it would have made Baby Jesus cry if she had decided to take anything less than such a "bold" stand on the issue.

Ms. McCain goes on to say that she "[doesn't] want to be too harsh on Carrie Prejean" because, after all, she's only 22 and "she feels the same way about gay marriage that [sic] our own president does." Yes. Ms. Prejean is only 22. Fair enough. As I said earlier, my primary complaint is that she has this undeserved platform in the first place. But I must take issue with McCain's 2nd point. I'm growing tired of the non-stop propagation of this "Prejean and Obama have the same opinion on gay marriage" meme. Sure, they both believe that "marriage is between a man and a woman," but to stop there and claim that their views on the issue are equivalent is, at best, a beyond-Clinton/Bush-league distortion of the facts, true on only the most superficial level! I do not consider such language hyperbolic because, first of all, Prejean has, thus far, to the best of my knowledge, shown herself to be incapable of speaking intelligently on this subject, particularly from a policy standpoint. Secondly, Obama is, in fact, in favor of civil unions and even opposed Proposition 8 because it used the California constitution to take rights/priveleges away from people, which is the opposite of what a constitution is supposed to do. That said, I do think that Obama deserves criticism and pressure from supporters of same-sex marriage for his stance on this issue. I'm certainly not going to give him a free pass. It seems ironic, even hypocritical, for a black person to promote same-sex civil unions but not marriage considering the parallels between such a "separate-but-equal" policy and those used to subjugate black Americans in the past. His own parents wouldn't even have been able to marry each other in certain states until 1967!

The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is to ask what are [some] possible motivations people have for propagating this meme. Ms. McCain probably doesn't know any better. However, I have seen other bloggers incorporate this disingenuous assertion into their strategy to frame the issue. [Some of] these are the same people who always take pains to characterize Obama as some kind of radical leftist. The implication is that support of same-sex marriage is an issue so far to the left that not even our "radical-leftist" president supports it, when the reality is that same-sex marriage is not a partisan issue, but a human/civil rights issue.

Of course, there are some contradictions in this framing. First of all, President Obama is emphatically not a radical. He's a politician. Sure, he talked a lot about "change" during his campaign, and it does seem like he's working towards some of that, but most of these changes have been (or will be) cosmetic, or marginal, or superficial. He hasn't yet really done anything to drastically alter the status quo. Even the bailouts and the stimulus were not dramatic departures from previous policies (of course, this is debateable, but that's not really the point right now). Another problem with the "gay marriage is a left-wing issue" meme is the fact that many people like Meghan McCain who are not liberal support it. Also, it's not very consistent to say that the U.S. is a "center-right country," as do so many carriers of this meme, and simultaneously call an issue that regularly garners support from more than 40% in many states (and support increases the younger the demographic) a "left-wing issue." Come on, people, Which is it? You can't have it both ways!

On a final note, I've often observed that self-described conservatives seem to think that calling someone a "liberal" is some kind of trump card that wins any debate; or they use it like some sort of elementary school playground insult. Why is this? It makes even less sense to me than the use of the word "gay" as an insult.

Anyway, thanks for reading! Happy trials! Especially those of you with Conservative and/or Christian Persecution Complex! Count it all joy, my brethren [and sistren]!

¹Of course, I realize that one reason for this is that it's such a common procedure. I do understand the conviction that carrying a pregnancy to term should be congratulated. I plan on discussing this issue more in-depth in a later post.

²People must be judged according to the standards by which they judge others. Of course, I believe there's always room for mercy.

³Of course, it's usually a good thing to help others if you can, and, in fact, it may be unethical if you can help another person, but don't and the other person is harmed.

⁴Of course, I don't claim we should take him at his word. We can have a discussion about that, but that's not the issue right now.

"There's Only One Woman in the World... With Different Faces"

2009-10-09T01:03:00.004-06:00

This is a follow-up to my column, "Bitches Ain't Shit, but Ho's and Tricks." It seems that I left out a few things I wanted to say, even though that column was over 2300 words in length.

I am a strong believer in freedom (to a certain extent. I can discuss that more in-depth later). But I believe that freedom requires responsibility. I don't think I made this perfectly clear in my "Bitches" column. When it comes to sex, freedom in this area requires that we take certain precautions. If you've taken any sort of sex-education class, you should know what those are (for the present purposes, I think it's sufficient for me to state that they exist without going into a lot of detail about what they are). I also believe that freedom requires us to have realistic expectations. Things aren't going to be perfect just because you have more options. With more options come opportunity costs because there are more options you can't choose than there are when you have less options from which to choose. OK! I hope I've cleared that up!

Everyone masturbates, but when I bring up masturbation in front of people I've just met at a Denny's at 2 am after karaoke, they think it's awkward for some reason. Why is that?

My mother was raised Catholic, so she was raised to think that sex is disgusting. When her and my dad were "living in sin," she got pregnant with me so she could convince my dad to marry her (half-joke!). But during this time, she was also ashamed to go out in public because people would know she was having sex or had at least once had sex in the past. She still hasn't gotten over this misplaced aversion towards sex. When my dad tries to feel her up, (even at home!) she tells him to stop, and calls him a pig (on the other hand, maybe there are other reasons for that). That just goes to show you how such a restrictive upbringing can fuck up a person. You see how difficult I (and others) have it trying to educate people not to be ashamed of their bodies or anything like that.

I really hate self-righteousness. My reaction to it is always: "But you masturbate!" That's always a great self-righteousness trump card. Another thing I can't stand is people who try to act like their "relationship with God" makes them more moral. Most moral standards based on religion are unattainable. Don't tell me that it's possible to live a "sinless" life. Don't tell me it's possible to "overcome" human nature. Sure, it might be possible, but what fully-informed person would make the decision to live like that? How does a person with such a human-nature-denying system of morality deal with continually failing to meet their own standards? I would assume that if s/he is a mainstream, non-Catholic Christian, s/he just asks for forgiveness and moves on with his/her life, possibly subtly, smugly looking down on the "unforgiven." Other religious people might have their own problems to deal with, like guilt, etc. Of course, if anyone tries to make me feel guilty for not living up to their moral standards (of course, not believing in God is about as far as I've gotten at this point), my response is usually "Fuck you, man! I was more repressive of myself than any of you for the past 24 years! Don't act like you're more righteous than me just because you have an imaginary friend!"

Ok. Gee... ended on kind of a harsh note there. Anyway, thanks for reading! Happy trials!

New YouTube Video: "I Want You..."

2009-10-06T17:20:00.005-06:00

I want to feel connected to you

I want to understand you, and I want you to understand me.

I want to be able to look into your eyes and know that I'm speaking to a human being.

I want you to make yourself completely vulnerable--completely break down the walls you've built around you.

Dispell all preconceived notions you've ever had about anything.

Let us not be afraid to be completely honest with ourselves and each other.

Let us reject fear, pride, contempt, and other irrationalities.

I'm not looking for a fight. I am not your enemy.

I want you to realize that we are all one... figuratively speaking.

Is this too much to expect?

Belated Obligatory Ted Kennedy Blog

2009-09-09T22:28:00.003-06:00

As you may know, Ted Kennedy died recently. Death is usually caused by what biologists call "fatal genes." In the case of Mary Jo Kopechne, this was the gene that causes young women to get into cars with drunken senators as well as the gene that causes the human brain to use more oxygen than can be filtered out of a body of water.

I've heard various perspectives on the Ted Kennedy legacy. Most of those on the left praised his legislative accomplishments. Some were particularly obsequious and "hagiographical" of the man. I believe MSNBC spent several days' worth of coverage on the story. Obviously, this can become annoying after a while, but one needs to keep in mind that the seemingly over-arching philosophy on the left is that a person's accomplishments (or even just a person's intentions) for "the greater good" count for more than their personal failings. This is why many liberals (including feminists) loved Bill Clinton even though there exist women who he might have allegedly mistreated on a personal level. Some would argue that Kennedy's "personal failings" were far worse than Clinton's, but I'll get into that later.

Of course, one question we must ask is how effective Kennedy's legislation was at accomplishing its intended goals. As a "libertarian," I am fully aware that law-making is like manufacturing sausage. There's a lot in there aside from meat. There are also a lot of "unintended consequences." For example, large corporations tend to be able to afford the legal muscle to seek loopholes in regulations, whereas for smaller businesses, these regulations might not seriously increase "equality of opportunity/access," but may be difficult or costly to implement, and a smaller business would not be able to afford to pay a legal services department millions of dollars to seek a loophole. Yet, as a semi-rational human being, I also realize that not everyone is going to "do the right thing." No, you can't legislate morality, but (go ahead... call me a hippy) I believe that people have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of things like race, gender, religion (or lack thereof), etc., except, of course, in very limited cases, such as in private clubs, like the boy scouts, which I, in turn, refuse to support. Since I believe this is a right, I also believe that it's the government's job to protect this right. Of course, I don't think that congress has to enforce this using the interstate commerce clause! I'm sure the equal protection clause would work just fine. But if I'm wrong and we need to change the constitution to reflect this idea, I'm sure there are ways of doing so that do not require congress to insinuate itself into every aspect of my life! So, anyway, for what it's worth, thanks, Ted Kennedy, I guess, for that Americans with Disabilities Act... I mean, it's possible that there would be other ways for me to have equal access to employment with my "condition," but then again, maybe not. I don't know. Since I'm ignorant in this area, I'm not going to assume anything right now. Since it's not my primary concern at this time, I'm not going to research this question right now, either, although I probably could. Yeah, thanks.

I don't think I need to discuss at length Ted Kennedy's aforementioned "personal failings." That has been done elsewhere. He has been criticized, obviously, for the Chappaquidick incident. He has been criticized for laughing at jokes about it. Some have criticized him for "wasting other people's money"; for his alcoholism[?] and his treatment of women. He has been rightly criticized for many things. Although I will say that I'm not sure how he can be criticized for laughing at Chappaquidick jokes. Lots of people laugh at such jokes. Why can't he? Just because he was responsible for the incident? Call me callous, but I would think that it caused him quite a lot of guilt and humor about it became a coping mechanism for him, possibly among numerous others. Ok, fine. I'm perfectly willing to admit it if my folk psychologizing is incorrect, but it's an idea that doesn't seem to have been considered by those who criticize Kennedy over it.

Andrew Breitbart¹, for example, was all a-twitter upon the demise of the Massachusetts senator. Ok, so Kennedy "wasted other people's money." He was "an animal to Clarence Thomas." He was "responsible for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne." You could reasonably claim that if he was responsible for her death, an investigation should have been performed and charges should have been filed. Wait... isn't that the process that was followed? I believe Kennedy was charged, albeit with a much lesser crime than, say, vehicular homicide. Ok, so you say he still needs to apologize. Not to you, right? To Kopechne's family? I haven't heard any of them ask for an apology. Is it really any of your business who he apologizes to? Obviously, his constituency doesn't seem to need an apology since they re-elected him numerous times.

Another thing Breitbart said was that Kennedy was "proof that big government is evil." Ok. Even if he was responsible for Kopechne's death, I don't see anyone who was outraged at Kennedy similarly outraged over the Iraq war (which Kennedy at least had the decency to vote against, thought it might not have required much political courage as he was "the senior senator from Massachusetts" at the time) or even the Oil for Food program (thanks a lot, Clinton administration!), each of which were responsible for over 100,000 deaths. Surely no one would claim that if you kill one person, you're a monster, but if you kill hundreds of thousands, you're a hero and a great leader. I would seriously question the sincerity of anyone who would suggest that, for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act was worse than the Patriot Act, or that "No Child Left Behind," as bad as it was, was worse than the Iraq War. Not seeing it!

Thanks for reading. Happy trials!

¹The man is possibly my Moby Dick. Well he is white... and kind of whale-like.

Racewars 2.0!!! [or: Credibility Issues 1.0]

2009-08-17T09:00:00.008-06:00

[note: I had wanted to write about Andrew Breitbart's latest intellectually dishonest column, but I felt like I needed to write about this one first, for the sake of context. See you next time!]

Andrew Breitbart, in addition to operating breitbart.com and bighollywood.com and writing for the Drudge Report, has his own little column in the Washington Times (not helping your credibility there, pal). He would seemingly like to think that he has fresh ideas about the race issue in this country, but there are a lot of aspects of that issue that he doesn't really quite seem to understand. He's of the school that believes that [of course, it's possible that I'm being reductive] the whole racism problem in America ["c" not "k." Don't worry, I got it!] would simply vanish if those darn liberals cut out all that politics-as-usual "identity politics" and "affirmative action" bullshit! Now let's be clear. I am certainly no fan of identity politics. I do agree that it's bullshit [not that Republicans or conservatives ever play identity politics. Certainly not. You can just ask Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and Piyush "Bobby" Jindal]. Also, there's obviously a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Government actions always have unforseen consequences. Affirmative action based on race has probably engendered at least a bit of bitterness and resentment among those who saw it as being at their expense. "Hey! I never owned slaves or discriminated against minorities, or even had the opportunity to do so," some might have asked, "so why am I being punished!?" My concern right now is not whether or not those poor, unfortunate souls suffered actual damages due to affirmative action. My point is that it's not necessarily the fault of most white people alive today that racial inequalities are still such a problem in this country. But that's not even the real point. The real point is that you don't even need the racism of ordinary Americans to perpetuate a state in which there are gross inequalities. It so happens that most of the people in charge of this country today are white males. This is largely because of racism, definitely that of the past, although it is far less prevalent now, yet it still exists. There are, of course, other factors (including classism and sexism, and, sure, whatever reasons conservatives say there are), which I don't feel the need to address at this time! But now that the system is set up this way, you no longer need racism to "keep the black man down" because this state is "self-perpetuating." Is this not a "self-evident truth"? Could anyone perhaps present an argument against this? I'm sure you would at least agree that people have to realize that, if nothing else, this has been the case until very recently.

So a few weeks ago, this black dude got arrested for being loud in his own yard, and maybe being a bit disrespectful to a [white] cop. I would like to remind you that nothing this guy did was actually a crime! I cannot emphasize this strongly enough! But not a big deal. Happens all the time. Oh wait, turns out this guy was a well-respected Harvard professor. Should the cop have thought twice before arresting a partially disabled [basically] senior citizen for a non-crime? No. Of course not. The police in this country have the authority, nay, the obligation to tase first and ask questions never. So then, someone from the press did a "man in the white house" interview of another black guy, and he was all, "gee, I wonder if race had anything to do with this." Totally a legitimate question. For example, it's a commonly-known statistic that black people use drugs at a rate similar to that of white people, yet 2/3rds of the people in jail for drug offenses are black. Hm, I wonder why that is. But it turns out that, no, the cop actually taught a class on racial profiling, so, maybe race didn't have anything to do with it. Maybe the cop was simply being a major dick-hole. Again, not a big deal. This sort of thing happens all the time. But then again, as author/genius/"blowhard demagogue" Michael Eric Dyson pointed out, maybe things would have been different if it had been a black officer arresting an older white man in his own home for a non-crime. This too is a legitimate question to which I know not the answer. It's something for us all to consider on our own. This is, I think, the difference between Dyson and, say, Al Sharpton: Instead of asserting that race had something to do with the incident, Dyson asks that we examine what race may have had to do with the incident. In any case, when this revelatory information was revealed, that the police officer was probably not a racist, merely a dick-hole, the president, for political reasons, had to back away from his perfectly legitimate criticisms of the man. Of course, the officer's co-workers came to his defense. This was to be expected. Just as Obama came to the defense of Gates, who he said was a friend. I have heard some say that Obama should have simply kept his mouth shut on the issue until he knew all the facts. I personally think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq until we had all the facts, but that's beside the point. What, are these people going to tell the president that he shouldn't excercise his own 1st Amendment rights simply due to a lack of information? Was Obama wrong in his assessment of the situation? I think not. I understand that there was a lot of hatred poured out against poor Officer Crowley and this might possibly have had something to do with Mr. President's refusal to stay silent on the issue like some kind of submissive dhimmi. But how do we know that similar feelings were not directed at Professor Gates? What is the complaint of those who [most likely before they had full knowledge of the circumstances] sided with the officer? I don't understand.

To me, Andrew Breitbart lost more than a little bit of credibility on the race issue in his [predictably intellectually dishonest] post-Gates-gate column in the Times, in which he makes some claims that I find difficult to understand. First, he claims that Obama wanted "to protect the status quo." What status quo is that? The one in which less than 1% of Fortune 500 CEOs are black? I find it difficult to imagine that the Democratic party is so greedy for black votes that they'd be willing to keep this "status quo." Breitbart also writes, "Any serious discussion would have put multiculturalism on trial." I don't really know how he defines multiculturalism here. I, for one, think that multiculturalism is fine as long as there are no burqas involved! As long as we're all under the same set of laws! As long as we're not terrified of offending people in certain groups! To me, it's not "seeing people in terms of the color of their skin" or anything like that. It's embracing the freedom of others to be different. That's what America is all about, right? Breitbart then spends a couple of paragraphs of the column trying to argue for some kooky conspiracy theory about Obama taking classes from far-left professors in college or something like that (oh no! Far-left professors!? Anything but that!). Then there were a couple of statements in the rest of the column that drew my attention. First, Breitbart points out that mediocre college grades didn't seem to be a problem for Bush II, Gore, or Kerry! Obviously, college grades don't matter if you're a white, upper-class, heterosexual male. But could we say the same of anyone from a different background? This is a question that Breitbart seemingly fails to consider, though it stares him in the face. Then, he makes the odd declaration that Obama and Gates wanted "to end a national discussion on race, not begin one," that they had initially "played the race card," which "proved unpopular," and so "orchestrated" the infamous 'beer summit' so that they could "have their frosted malt beverages and get outta Dodge." Wow! Nothing racist about that statement! Nope! Move along now, nothing to see here...

Breitbart's problem is that he seems to ignore or at least downplay most of the factors in our country's race/class/gender problems [some of which I mentioned earlier in this column!] and focus on the following issues: ⁽¹⁾What are the black-studies departments at our Ivy League Liberal Elite Universities teaching? ⁽²⁾The Democratic Party, in order to keep its lock on the black vote, tells black people that they have to be afraid "of cops, of Republicans, of conservatives, of 'Uncle Toms,' and even of Tiger Woods, who proves that America, while still imperfect, is clearly heading in the right direction." Right. None of the things I mentioned previously in this column are part of the problem. We can apparently ignore all of that stuff. It's all Liberal Elitists and Black-Studies Departments that we should be concerned about! Alright! Glad you shared that oracle with all of us unenlightened masses! Thanks!

Sorry, but the rest of us live in this foreign land called "reality." You are always welcome to join us, if you are so inclined.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure that if you wanted to "accuse" someone of being an "Uncle Tom" you couldn't find a much better target than Obama, himself. To act like he hasn't been critical of this attitude within the black community is ignorant at best. I don't know. I don't want to read too much into that... or do I?

New YouTube Video: "Fuck Her Gently"

2009-08-15T22:33:00.005-06:00

This is my cover of "Fuck Her Gently" by Tenacious D. I'm sure I would have otherwise made my first video one in which I attempt to expound "deep thoughts" or whatever as I [attempt to] do here in my blog. It just so happens that I finished this first. Oh well. I'm sure I'll put up "real" videos later. Anyway, enjoy!

The Silent Treatment

2009-08-01T01:17:00.002-06:00

Once I had this friend who I loved very, very much (I still love her, but not quite in the same way). It might be more accurate to say that I was completely obsessed with her. She didn't like me any more than any of her other friends, but she tolerated me for quite a while. She didn't completely stop talking to me until about a year and a half ago when I temporarily moved to a location within 70 miles of where she lived, although she didn't cut me off from all contact with her, or "excommunicate" me, as she would say.

After this, I would sometimes talk to her on instant messenger when she was online, but she would never respond. Sooner or later, I realized that the way I felt when I was talking to her on IM was the same way I felt when I prayed, and I had to ask myself,"Is it consistent with my view of God that he would [permanently] give me 'the silent treatment'?" I then realized that I had never felt or perceived that God had "spoken" to me, figuratively or literally.

The whole thing made me kind of sad, although I've gotten over it since then. It was just one step out of many on the road to atheism, [in addition to everything else it was. I would never reduce such an experience to just one thing].

2 Girls 1 Cupp?

2009-07-27T10:04:00.016-06:00

EDIT: S.E. Cupp iz DOUBLE PWN3D!!

Please feel free to join me in [giving her] the golden shower of haterade, if you like.

S.E. Cupp is an atheist... well, probably "faitheist" would be a more accurate term. She single-handedly proves that atheists can be dumb, too. She's a conservative and she says the most ignorant shit regarding politics and defending those who already have power. In one of her columns, she laughably referred to Dinesh D'Souza as a "scholar"! She even parroted his line about how "atheist" regimes are responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century, [so there! hm! *turns up nose*, *sticks out tongue*]. It's fairly clear that she's not the most contemplative person I know of. But she's on tv a lot. I guess because they need more hot, idiotic, conservative brunettes on Fox News?

Here, however, she does a decent job of pwning Mark Sanford, so I guess she's not all bad.

EDIT: bonus video!

RE-EDIT: double-bonus video!!! *gag*