sex and death

Wolfsangel book review

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:42:00 +0000

Wolfsangel is the first fantasy novel by Mark Barrowcliffe under the nom-de-plume MD Lachlan. M.D. Lachlan obviously loves Norse mythology and is an ex-roleplayer (he also wrote the Elfish Gene). Both of these things endeared the book to me before I’d even opened it, since I too love Norse mythology, and play role-playing games. In fact I learned a lot of my Norse myths from role-playing, and I’m guessing that M.D. Lachlan did too. However, I didn’t actually read the book for quite a while, since the publicity emphasised that it was about werewolves, rather than Vikings. This conjured up (to me at any rate), visions of Lon Chaney-esque wolfmen baying at the full moon before getting their come-uppance from a suitable bit of silver.

This isn’t that sort of book. Instead it evokes the bleak landscapes of the Norse sagas, with violent death and evil seidr magic constantly threatening, and indeed, killing most of the books characters. The wolf in question is the Fenrisulfr, the spawn of Loki, enemy of Odin, the hanged god, battle-bold and one-eyed. And the seidr – the dark and dangerous runemagic of women - is suitably filthy and murderous. Something no Aesir-respecting warrior should dabble in.

In fact the story begins when King Authun the pitiless, a Viking Jarl, leads his berserks on a raid to kidnap a magical child on the basis of a witch’s prophecy. Even the men who survive must sacrifice themselves for the king’s prophecy to be fulfilled. In fact he finds two children. Things go downhill for Authun after that.

The main characters, Authun, his kidnapped sons Vali and Fealig, and their shared love-interest Adisla are well drawn and easy to sympathise with, and the story is suitably complex and involving. It has a strong sense of time and place, and I particularly like the fact that the author has translated a lot of the Norse words, as this is the way that the Norse would have actually heard the legends. I love the way that, for example, Fenris is tied with a cord called Thin to a rock called Scream. It’s all very redolent of the sagas.

So if you like Vikings, magic, death and accomplished storytelling, this is the sort of thing you’ll like.

Open Letter to Ed Vaizey

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:52:00 +0000

Dear Mr Vaizey,

I understand that you are meeting with internet service providers to discuss how the industry can better support parents and help them ensure that their children cannot access pornography.

I am the parent of a young child, and I would like to emphazize that I do not in any way support this initiative. The suggestion by Claire Perry MP, to switch the default setting for internet pornography in to our homes to off, and implement an opt-in system, is idiotic, and betrays a deep ignorance of both the technical workings of the internet, the dangers of censorship, and the psychology of sexual behaviour.

in detail:

1. It will not be possible to achieve. The use of proxy servers, ftp, file-sharing, texting and good old email will mean that any child except the terminally stupid who wants to access pornography will be able. This will be an embarrasing and public failure for your government. Do you really want to be less popular than you are at present?

The ban on child pornography is only effective because all parties, internationally, agree that child pornography is undesireable, and actively police it. There is no such agreement over adult pornography, inded the top 10 search terms on google each day have the word 'porn' in them. People like porn.

2. Who will decide which sites are pornographic? Automated technology works poorly, and the experience of those that have had the internet censored in their countries is that it is not long before dissenting political views and human rights violations are being hushed up too. Do you really want to put us on a par with China, the middle east and North Korea?

3. Contrary to the misinformation being offered up by people such as SaferMedia, wider availability of pornography actually reduces the number of sex crimes. Please actually take the time to look at real evidence, such as the studies from the Czech Republic, Japan and Denmark, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm rather than simplistic moralisation and political point scoring of SaferMedia. Tightening up on pornography on the internet will lead to more women being raped and sexually abused, not less.

I had hoped that this government would be less stupid and authoritarian than the last one. I voted for you on that basis. My hopes so far have not been realised.

Yours Sincerely,

Imagining the 4th dimension

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:20:00 +0000

Ever since I was little, well fairly little, inspired by the writings of A.A. Attanasio, I have tried to imagine higher-dimensional shapes. Shapes like the lovely hypercube:

Dimensions is a lovely project which takes you through the maths of higher dimensional shapes, without overwhelming you with detail. It's all done through animation, and you can watch it online. Don't be a flatlander. JFDI!

Agnostic buses

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:50:00 +0000

The two things that you need to know about the atheist bus campaign (to which I've dutifully added my tenner) :

They were hoping to make £5,500, but have in fact made over £75,000 in the first couple of days.
The CiF comment thread now has 1739 comments on it. More than I've ever seen on a CiF thread.

Yay atheists!

The buses are actually agnostic, apparently because Transport for London advertising rules don't allow people to be definite in their unbelief for fear of causing offence to religious people. Considering the enthusiastic response to the campaign, there are obviously a lot of atheists out there who might be offended by those adverts which definitely proclaim their belief.

I'm not overly bothered about this, being a bit of a 6 myself on the Dawkins Scale, although it would have been nice to have slogans that were a bit more 'in your face'. Maybe next time.

Bryan Appleyard doesn't like it though.

recording the creation of the worlds first fascist democracy.

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:15:00 +0000

Via England Expects, a blog now sadly defunct owing to the actions of some petty eurocrat, I found this google map of England which records:

"A geographical view of both the public and the personal effect of State sponsored fear and distrust as seen through the twisted technological lens of petty officials and would be bureaucrats nationwide."

according to its creator, Hieronymous, who is busy recording the creation of the worlds first fascist democracy.

Worth a look.

Don't talk to the police

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:17:00 +0000

The Times today reports that the Home Office is putting forward a new set of proposals aimed at locking more of us up. Presumably in "titan" jails. The meat of the proposal, according to the Times, is as follows:

Ban on post-charge questioning to end
Children to be interviewed without parents being present
Courts to be able to draw an inference of guilt if a suspect refuses to take part in an identity parade or answer post-charge questions
Shopping centre “jails” to hold suspects accused of low-level crime for up to 4 hours while they are processed by police
Non-police workers such as park wardens to be allowed to detain registered sex offenders
Police to be allowed to question suspects for longer before bringing charges

All this opens up the unsavoury prospect of the police being able to question people repeatedly for months on end whilst they are awaiting trial, children being bullied by adults in uniform, and park wardens beating up suspected nonces ("it was reasonable force, guv").

What is of most concern is that courts will be able to draw an inference of guilt if a suspect refuses to answer post-charge questions. This completely reverses the burden of proof, implying that you are guilty if you refuse to answer questions designed to entrap you.

The video below, despite being American, explains exactly why you should never speak to the police, even if you are as innocent as the day is long:

Fat camp, here I come

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:56:00 +0000

From the Daily Telegraph we have the following UK government proposal. They want companies to be able to provide tax-free incentives to their employees to encourage them to lose weight.

I spot a business opportunity here. Suppose I run my own company (which I do) does this mean I can pay myself to get thin and claim the tax back? Tax free skiing holidays on health grounds beckon as well.

Would I have to pay the tax back when I almost inevitably put all the weight back on (as 19 out of 20 dieters do)? Or can I just make a pledge to improve things and keep paying myself tax free. Sounds like a winner to me.

Mind you it's a mystery to me why doctors invariably prescribe diet and exercise to lose weight when, long term, the vast majority of their patients will fail to lose weight that way. It's as though I went in with a headache and they gave me a pill with the advice that there's only a 1 in 20 chance that it would fix me up. I wouldn't be very satisfied with that, and I don't suppose many others would either. Yet people simply look shamefaced as their disgustingly obese BMI is read out and promise to try harder.

I think this is because being fat is regarded as a moral weakness (especially by some young people) , rather than simply being the result of us being anatomically cavemen with a metabolism tuned to make the most of scarce food resources. The only problem is that we're living in a culture in which tasty nutritious food is all around us. It's not about willpower, it's about biochemistry.

H/T to Mr Eugenides for this one.

Achieving my Apotheosis

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:07:00 +0000

With yet another h/t to Surreptitious Evil it appears that I am a Nerd God. I always though of myself as more of a bacchanalian pagan God. However nerd is good too. I really must put some sensible posts up...

UPDATE: Oh wait. Actually I'm not as nerdy or dorky) as all that:

Elsewhere

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:16:00 +0000

More of my childish, ill-formed and unimaginative thoughts can be found in this thread on the Sophistry of Liberty over at the Devils Kitchen. Hopefully this will prove that I'm not someone else.

My brain hurts

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:35:00 +0000

With a h/t to Surreptitious Evil, the reading level of this blog has been determined to be:

So welcome morons, cretins and assorted preschoolers to this cornucopia of speculation on the ontological and existential paradigms which bedevil our existence.

What a Wanker

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:24:00 +0000

I had a brief pointer to people having sex with their cars in a previous entry. That was pretty risible, but at least the folk involved were left alone to get on with their vehicular onanism. By way of a follow-up we now have have someone actually getting punished for pleasuring their bicycle. Of course what we actually have is a man pleasuring himself with said bicycle. Another way of looking at this is that a man was having a wank, by himself, in a locked hotel room.

For this Robert Stewart got hauled up in front of the local beak, Sheriff Colin Miller, who put him on probation for 3 years, and on the Sex Offenders Register for the same amount of time. He's now a convicted criminal, and officially a nonce. He's doubtless had his DNA taken by the police, and his job prospects ruined.

All for having a wank. In private.

It's not Mr Stewart who is the wanker here.

Fine Upstanding Mafia

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:05:00 +0000

My impression of the mafia was that they were all getting people to say hello to their little friends, and snorting enough blow to kill an elephant. However, it seems that I was wrong.

They apparently have 10 commandments just like the christians. I guess its their catholic Italian heritage coming through. The BBC lists them here. Lots of stuff about being nice to each other and their wives.

Charmingly old-fashioned, I thought.

Muslims just don't get it.

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:35:00 +0000

I read this article on the BBC site, nodding my approval of things like:

"If your community is perceived in a very negative manner, and poll after poll says that we are alienated, then Muslims begin to feel very vulnerable," he said.
"We are seen as creating problems, not as bringing anything and that is not good for society."

All very fair and reasonable. I agree with him that there's too much demonisation of Muslims, and far too much stereotyping. He follows on:

"Some of the Muslim principles can help social cohesion - family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor, and not being too greedy," he said.

Again, I found this hard to disagree with. These are principles which our culture tries to live up to, but often fails. They're a little old-fashioned, maybe, but none the worse for that.

And then he says this:

He also suggested restrictions on drinking alcohol in public places should be introduced, to follow on from the introduction of the smoking ban.
...Britain should embrace "assisted" marriages - the term he said he preferred instead of arranged marriages - as well as making abortion more difficult and encouraging more modesty.
"You shouldn't be revealing your body so much that it can be tempting to other people," he said.

Essentially he is against things like the freedom to marry who you want and get drunk occasionally. He is against the freedom for women to wear what they like, and have control of their own fertility.

They just don't fucking get it do they? This is what makes them foreign. This is what makes them alien. I'm saying 'them' in a perjorative manner here because these are cultural, not individual differences, which make them Not Like Us.

These things are intrinsic parts of our culture, like it or not. They are markers for deep underlying principles which underpin much of our way of life. Principles that people have fought and died for over the last 1000 years, such as the primacy of the individual over government, and particularly equality for women in all spheres of life.

And I'm afraid that until they understand this Muslims will continue to be regarded with suspicion.

Update: He likes book-burning as well.

Evolution in Action

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:13:00 +0000

here.

Nonce Sense

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:40:00 +0000

Lots of fuss about Chris Langham, after his conviction for 'creating' kiddy porn, although he got off the charges of actually having under-age sex. As one is obliged to do these days, I must first state my position on this. As Mr Langham once apparently said, I like children, although I couldn't eat a whole one. Actually that's not true. I don't really like children. They're nasty, smelly, annoying creatures who seem to do little except demand things and put sticky wrappers into your hand when you're not expecting it. I have one of my own. I know.

In other words, I'm not a paedophile, and I don't really understand people who are. I would no more want to have sex with a child than I would want to screw my car. This may come as a shock to the powers that be who believe that all men are latent peadophile rapists, just waiting for their perverted lusts to be triggered by a picture, but that's the way it is. I'm just not interested in children.

However, I was swimming this morning at my local pool when my eye chanced on an attractively pneumatic black woman frolicking in the water. Mmm, nice, thought my lizard brain. Not that I would have done anything about it, being happily married and a geek, but any man who says he doesn't look is a liar. Then her mum got into the pool and I realised that she was about 14. I was discreetly leching at an under-age girl. That makes me a paedophile, surely?

Well, not in Spain or Japan, and possibly not in Germany, or a host of other places.

It seems to me that whatever the legal age of consent is, someone who wishes to have sex with someone else who is pre-pubescent has something wrong with their brain. From an evolutionary perpective I can't think of any way in which this would be a useful adaptation*. They're just broken.

This is completely different from someone who wishes to have sex with someone else who is post-pubescent, but below the legal age of consent in their particular locality. That's entirely normal behaviour. Healthy young women are the ideal mate, from an evolutionary perspective. They are strong, fit and fertile. Society recognises this by encouraging females to try and look younger to get a partner. Boob jobs, cosmetics, hair dye are all ways to appear younger, and appeal to a male brain evolved to look for reproductive fitness, i.e. youth.

However, in the eyes of the law, they are just the same. This seems silly to me. I appreciate that we have to infantilise our teenagers in order to educate them sufficiently to be members of our complex western society. And I've blogged about Rousseau and the noble savage before. Even so, lumping people who are normal, but have transgressed their society's taboos in with people with broken brains seems wrong. The former need a slap on the wrist, the latter need treatment.

Fixed age of consent laws will always throw up anomalous cases, but it's generally for the best that schoolgirls get on with their homework without having to fend off men trying to get into their pants, so generally I support them. However, lumping everyone into the category of sick perverted paedophiles just isn't helpful. As with everything else in life, the reality is more nuanced.

* just because I can't think of it doesn't make it true, of course, but until I read otherwise, I'm sticking to it.

** the title comes from the fantastic Brass Eye 'Paedogedden' special.

UPDATE: someone on the cif thread pointed me here, with the statistic that 25% of adult males fancy children. That seems a bit high to me, and I suspect that what happens in the lab doesn't transfer into the real world in this case.

Entering the Twilight Zone

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:52:00 +0000

I seem to have entered a parallel universe today, in which everything I know is wrong. UK Healthcare is among the best in the world, despite being a quasi-Stalinist organisation. And the UK government has decided not to extend the term of music copyright, despite opposition objections.

Lordy. I need a lie down.

Smoking Kills!

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:01:00 +0000

So, we have ~~possibly~~ the first casualty in the War On Smoking. A man was shot after annoying some smokers in a bar. Now I don't condone shooting people who annoy you. We're not Americans after all. But it's just another, predictable, consequential effect of legislation. If you put in annoying laws, people are going to get annoyed. And occasionally people will get hurt.

Now I see that Friends of the Earth is recommending that patio heaters be banned. This means that all those annoyed smokers won't even be able to sit in a pub garden without freezing. So more people are going to get hurt when they come back inside. It's not even as though there's a clearcut link between passive smoking and health, according to this study.

Slow handclap for the totalitarians. Again.

Which Tarot Card Am I?

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:12:00 +0000

I like the Tarot, and can do passable readings. This may sound odd, considering I'm a thorough-going rational materialist, but I find the images fascinating, and in a Jungian sense I think they are visual representations of Archetypes. Anyway, I couldn't resist the chance to see what card I was:

You are The Hermit

Prudence, Caution, Deliberation.

The Hermit points to all things hidden, such as knowledge and inspiration,hidden enemies. The illumination is from within, and retirement from participation in current events.

The Hermit is a card of introspection, analysis and, well, virginity. You do not desire to socialize; the card indicates, instead, a desire for peace and solitude. You prefer to take the time to think, organize, ruminate, take stock. There may be feelings of frustration and discontent but these feelings eventually lead to enlightenment, illumination, clarity.

The Hermit represents a wise, inspirational person, friend, teacher, therapist. This a person who can shine a light on things that were previously mysterious and confusing.

What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out.

H/T to DK. I think I shall just crawl back into my cave now.

Fisking the Extreme Porn Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:47:00 +0000

This really follows on from my last post, but it was getting a tad unwieldy so I thought I'd split it. Plus writing sensibly was beginning to annoy me. These are the government's supposed reasons for bringing in the new law. Let us now peel back the foreskin of ignorance, and apply the wire brush of vitriol to their proposals.

Extreme Pornographic Images

802. The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but that for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This is bollocks. The government admits that it is a breach of human rights, but hopes to get away with it. On moral grounds. God I loathe people who believe that they have a right to impose their tired old morals on others. The grounds for banning something should be demonstrable harm. Not just because its objectionable. Which leads us to:

803. The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people.

So fucking what? All sorts of things are abhorrent to each and every one of us, but that's no grounds to make pictures of them illegal. Unless you're a moralising cunt like John Beyer.

It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence,

Oh yes it is! under the Sexual Offences act 2003 you are allowed to give oral sex to an animal, you are allowed to fist your wife, or give your lovers breasts or genitals a good thrashing. Distasteful? maybe. But not illegal. Fucking liars.

so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place.

This is nonsense. Given that the bill includes the idea that images that are acted or fake are prosecutable, it is entirely likely that no criminal offence is occurring in a majority of cases.

The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.

This was a truly disgusting piece of legislation, in which a group of gay men were engaged in a bit of consensual BDSM, and were jailed for it. One of them died in jail. Gay clubs were raided for years, and the BDSM scene is harassed because of it to this day. For the government to regard this as a good thing shows what a bunch of moralising bastards they really are.

804. In the case of images of staged activity , the Government believes that banning possession is justified in order to meet the legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities. This is also the case with images of bestiality, which while involving harm to animals can also involve the non-consensual participation of humans who are harmed in the process of making the images.

Ah, here we come to the actual reason. The government regards these paraphilias as "degrading". No wait. They believe that acting in a production depicting these acts is degrading, whilst in most cases actually doing them is not. Ludicrous inconsistent fuckwits.

805. The Government considers that the new offence is a proportionate measure with the legitimate aim of breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it.

This entire paragraph is hearsay, with no scientific backing from any source. It will not break the supply and demand cycle, since the rest of the western world will go on supplying and demanding it. This material may be harmful, they say except that evidence shows exactly the opposite. Banning this material will be harmful, as it will increase the rate of sex crimes. How many women need to be raped or murdered before the government bothers to read the studies? Lazy, ignorant, stupid mendacious cunts.

Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable. Viewing such images voluntarily can desensitise the viewer to such degrading acts, and can reinforce the message that such behaviour is acceptable.

There is absolutely no evidence that support these statements. However, contrary to my previous statements the government is not being inconsistent. They really do hate BDSM, fisting and all the rest. I'd just like to know what fucking business it is of theirs what people get up to in their own homes. The BDSM movements motto is "Safe, Sane, Consensual". I wish it was the governments motto.

806. The Government considers that the restrictions on this material also achieve the aim of protecting others, particularly children and vulnerable adults, from inadvertently coming into possession of this material, which is widespread on the internet.

Don't be so fucking stupid. England is the only country enacting this legislation. They may not even have it in Scotland. It'll all be up there, just the same. Unless, of course you want to use this as an excuse to start censoring the internet. Just like Saudi Arabia, China and all those other models of democratic freedom. You authoritarian fuckpigs.

Even More Extreme Pornography

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:20:00 +0000

So, the UK government has released the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 with the promised legislation on Extreme Pornography in sections 64-67. I've blogged on this before here and here. I know it came out a while ago, but I haven't had a chance to study it in detail until now. And guess what? It's even worse than they suggested in the consultation.

As always the legislation itself is boring to read and hedged about with legalese, but the notes are rather easier to read. The nub of it is as follows:

If you have pictures that the government doesn't like, of perfectly legal acts between consenting adults, you may be sent to prison for up to 3 years, and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life. You can be branded a nonce and locked up with all the other paedophiles, rapists and murderers, just for the sake of a few harmless pictures of legal acts.

So what sort of pictures doesn't the government like now?

Well, firstly they have to be pornographic. An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

Secondly they have to be “extreme”. An image is “extreme” if it depicts:

(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.

The first thing to notice, is that in all cases these images only have to "appear to be real". In other words, it doesn't matter if it's just acting, or completely fake. The second thing is that many of these acts are actually perfectly legal to perform (including giving an animal a blowjob, curiously enough).

Images the government wants to criminalise:

Rape (a)
Torture (b)
Necrophilia (c)
Bestiality (d)

In actuality, images that are likely to be criminalised include:

Breath play (a)
Fisting (b)
Anal intercourse (b)
BDSM involving the parts listed in (b)
Sleepy sex (c)

There are probably a lot more. Perhaps interested readers will suggest a few and I'll list them.

As I've said before, you personally may not be into any of the above things. But a lot of people are. Around 5% of the population are into BDSM, and about 25% of the gay population. In England that's around 2m people. Around 10% of the population like a regular bit of back-door action. That's another 4m potential criminals. Even if not many are photography enthusiasts, that's still an awful lot of people.

And there's simply no point to this. The government themselves admitted that there was no causal link between Extreme Porn images and criminal activity. No other western democracy wants to ban images of this sort, and numerous studies have shown that the free availability of porn actually reduces sex crimes.

This legislation will, by the governments own admission protect no-one, criminalise many law-abiding people, and increase the number of sex crimes in England. It will also encourage the Police to burst into peoples houses at dawn to confiscate their computers, and provoke more censorship of the Internet. Still think that it has nothing to do with you?

There are other articles worth reading on the subject here and here.

The governments offical line on this is here, and this debate is pretty representative of the lack of understanding of this issue by the powers that be. References can be found in my response to the initial consultation.

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:46:00 +0000

Here's an article from Psychology Today which I rather enjoyed. It looks at a number of social phenomena from an evolutionary psychology basis, and although the evidence offered is a bit sketchy in some places, it's worth a read. Evolutionary psychology is one of those things which is so obviously right that it's a no-brainer (pun intended), but almost no-one believes in because it de-mystifies our behaviour and makes us feel less like free agents, and more like the semi-conscious automata that we really are.

Silver Pirate Things

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:48:00 +0000

Unity over at the Ministry of Truth has an article about how European Law impacts on the Silver Ring Thing court case thing involving Lydia Playfoot thing. Unity has made something of a study of the case in fact.

If I read article 9 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights correctly, my daughter can go to school in full pirate regalia, despite the fact that her school has a fairly strict dress code, because she is (or claims to be) a worshipper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. FSM's worshippers are exhorted to wear this regalia because it will reduce global warming (of course).

Article 9 protects the right of a person to manifest their religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Dressing like a pirate is in fact an act of worship, possibly an example to others (teaching), definitely a religious practice (since it dates from the religions foundation), and an observance. Consequently this is protected by the full force of European law.

All of which goes to show how ridiculous this religious stuff is.

UPDATE: She lost, of course.

Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:59:00 +0000

Do you want to understand global trends for life expectancy, child mortality and poverty rates? Are you rubbish with figures and hate statistics, and thus find the modern world hopelessly confusing?

Notwithstanding the fact that if you're stupid, you're probably too stupid to realise it, of course.

Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen is a talk by Hans Rosling which is both funny, informative and for me at least, quite surprising. Even better, you can play with the lovely visualisation tool he uses for yourself. A fine way to waste an afternoon in my opinion.

Satanic Knighthoods

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:22:00 +0000

Good to see that Salman Rushdie has been given a Knighthood in this years UK Honours list. Good mostly because it has annoyed the Iranian government, who are frankly even more corrupt and useless than our own, and that's saying something.

Even better is that Shami Chakrabati has been given a CBE. She's one of the very few people who have made a principled stand for human rights and personal freedoms during the term of the Labour government, so it's something of a surprise. Shame she didn't turn it down though.

The Honours list is basically just a popularity contest, with anyone who can pay enough, or get enough column inches getting a gong, so it's generally dominated by worthless politicians and sports folk. I wonder if a blogger will ever get one?

The thrill of being forced

noreply@blogger.com (Sacerdoteuk) — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:16:00 +0000

In the great game of Dominance & Submission which makes up our human existence (and that of most other pack animals), I like to think of myself as a Dom, a Top, an Alpha. Probably this is to do with the testosterone which courses through my male veins. I like to be in charge, or more specifically, I loathe being ordered about, especially when it's 'for my own good'. This in turn fuels my right-wing libertarian political viewpoint.

However, many people do not share this view, and naturally appreciate the firm smack of authority. It makes them feel secure, wanted and part of something greater than themselves, It also helps diminish death anxiety. The converse is also true. Studies show that people become more authoritarian when they are anxious.

I was reminded of this whilst reading an article on spiked-online, which quotes Al Gore on climate change:

‘The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise…. When we do rise, it will fill out spirits and bind us together. Those who are now suffocating in cynicism and despair will be able to breathe freely. Those who are now suffering from a loss of meaning in their lives will find hope.’

So Big Al enjoys 'the thrill of being forced'. Indeed it fulfils his 'need for transcendence'. It's funny how often those in positions of power often turn out to be subs.
This appeal to authority has other implications for contemporary eco-warriors. In the old days, and particularly during the Christian dark ages, people solved problems about the world through appeals to authority. If it was in the bible, then it was true. If the bible was a bit sketchy, or inconsistent, then further proof would be provided by reference to Plato, or Aristotle. No-one actually checked the information. No-one did rigorous observations of the world. so for hundreds of years people believed that the world was flat, and that geese were born from barnacles.

However, there has been another thread to western civilisation. Since Aristotle first wrote about Empericism some 2300 years ago, through the Muslim polymath Alhacen, via Dr Mirabilis in the West, to Karl Popper in our time, the scientific method has been developed. After the renaissance, scientific thinking became our dominant way of dealing with the world. This fuelled the industrial revolution, and lead us to the world of today, where at least in the West, we are living longer, healthier lives than anyone in the history of Mankind.

But Eco-Masochists like Gore want to turn the clock back. Their science is merely appeals to authority. The IPCC report has lots of scientists contributing so it must be right. George Monbiot writes in the paper, so he must be right.

This world of plenty and change frightens Eco-Masochists. They don't want unlimited horizons and the freedom to achieve our dreams. They want a 'compelling moral purpose', so that they will be able to 'breathe freely' and 'find hope'. They want to be bound by regulations and slapped promptly when they transgress. They want state interference with every aspect of their lives, so that they feel cared for, and less scared.

I think that Bertrand Russell put it best: 'If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing'