Thursday, 22 July 2010
Why is this newsworthy? Why isn't it in the news that the same man believes a huge powerful genie lives in the sky and made the universe and listens to his thoughts?
Because we are numb to it, that's why, but this type of thing drills home a point; there is no 'rational' high ground with religion.
The logical error between a man who believes in Jesus and a man who believes his son is possessed by an evil genie (djinn probably sounded like too much of a respectable term for the mail) is EXACTLY the same; it just so happens that, by blind luck, the man who just believes jesus doesn't have such a destructive influence on the life of his children in such a specific way.
Society needs to stop trying to have its cake and eat it when it comes to religion; this is precisely what you'd expect when you defend its right to exist free of criticism. Religion literally hurts people, directly, because the things it teaches are randomly good or bad, but currently society is incapable of treating it as though it is anything but good.
Saturday, 17 July 2010
All well and good so far.
The thing that annoys me is the description that is given by the paper:
'It was very dark at the time of the attack but the victim believes one of the men may have short, dark, curly hair.'
Race is suspiciously absent from that description isn't it? This is a recurring theme on the daily mail.
Now, the reader may not know this, but most gang rapes in the UK are perpetrated by black people. The second biggest group of offenders are asians, and the smallest significant offender group is white people.
This is really all I had to say; I wish the media wouldn't leave out the race of rape attackers. Yeah, they'll almost always be black or asian, but this is only a problem if you can't see a rapist without having to check his skin color first.
60%-80% of gun criminals and rapists are black people, but 100% of gun criminals and rapists are gun criminals and rapists. That's the real correlate; it may seem hard, but part of racism is treating non-white people the same as everyone else when it comes to bad things too.
Friday, 16 July 2010
Now I have NEVER read a "rules" for relationships that wasn't complete bullshit, and I am so confident that it is that I'm going to write this as I read them. Ok, rule 1:
1. Make sure you want to.
"FUCK. That was lucky. I was about to break up with her, I had got all my reasons clear in my head and was preparing to deliver them to her in an emotionally charged finale to our relationship, but then I realized that I don't want to break up with her at all, in fact I want to get married and be with her forever!
Lucky I read that fucking article."
What kind of man starts breaking up with a woman and forgets to check if he actually wants to do it? Is this the same guy who watches 5 hours of football before remembering that he hates football?
2. But if it's over, it's over: "When you've made up your mind to do it, do it."
Again, what kind of fucking man is this? He makes up his mind to break up with her and then doesn't do it?
Same guy who decides to go to work at 9, checks his watch at the end of the work day and realizes he forgot to go in?
3. Remember, you loved her
This is turning into a serious, serious mental problem.
4. Remember the ground
"If you don't plan ahead, you may be in for a long night of tears, tantrums and smashed gadgetry. Preparing for the moment of separation is key to a smooth break up."
Well, I hope so. Is this really something to be avoided? Anyway, not too goofy. It just seems that if she is that upset and you ever cared about her maybe it wouldn't be so terrible to not just go "You're dumped, bye!". Of course the guy this article is taking about has probably forgotten who he is 5 times by this point.
5. Do it!
Again; what kind of man is this? He needs to be reminded to actually do things. Also on this page;
"Use conciliatory language, and don't always say exactly what you mean. So, "your friends are a bunch of toxic harpies," becomes, "I just couldn't click with Cath and Sal"."
This is actually terrible advice. It's excuse-making, and this would lead to a "Well I can change that!" scenario which is very hard to deal with.
Again, has the writer even been in a relationship? If so they clearly didn't have the gall and sense of self-worth to just state "I don't want to do it anymore" without having to shift the fucking blame onto poor Cath and Sal.
6. But don't 'er', do it
"On no account accept the offer of one last 'intimate moment'. It will only confuse matters and end up making everything more difficult in the long run."
Again, what type of person is both the man and the woman in this scenario? According to this article she's crying, she's distraught, the guy is a chronic amnesiac, and now she's going to get horny through all the tears?
And if it is a 'trying to get you back' fuck, well what kind of guy can be won back with sex? A woman who uses sex to manipulate and a guy who is manipulated by sex are probably best together instead of fucking up normal people's lives.
7. Don’t expect anything
"You may have it in your head that you can still be friends, but that's not your choice. Don't blame her if she takes the news less cordially than you imagined she would."
Well, kindof passable I guess. I think it's a sad scenario if, without the relationship, you don't even like each other. Says something pretty dark about relationships. However, as this guy probably won't remember the relationship after leaving the room it's not going to be a problem.
8. Repeat (for a while)
"Depending on how long the relationship lasted, how intense it was, and how secure or insecure you and/or your partner are, you may need to be prepared for further conversations," says Elly Prior.She probably deserves a few of those, but you don't deserve a stalker. At some point, the talking has to stop and the 'moving on' to start. If you've been courteous, kind and resolute, that will probably happen sooner rather than later - for both of you."
I guess. I'm still pretty fucking uncomfortable with how they're making this woman out to be. There seems to be no notion of her not being upset or also wanting to get out of it. And the wording almost implies this is likely.
So yeah. Dating 'rules' still a fat load of bunkum.
"Online traders cashing in on killer Raoul Moat's 'popularity' by selling sick T-shirts for £8"From a paper which has literally not shut up about Raoul Moat since he shot his girlfriend and killed her partner (oh, and an unarmed policeman), and is still flogging the dead moral panic horse long after it's croaked.
More often than not the Daily Mail has had two or even three Raoul Moat stories per day during the height of the events, and now they're trying to make one final cuppa out of the dregs of this farce by finding obscure groups on facebook and trying to make it into an article.
From the body of the story....
"Unscrupulous traders are cashing in on the sick wave of support for killer Roaul Moat by selling 'commemorative' T-shirts, it emerged today.
On the website Ebay, one selling was offering garish orange T-shirts emblazoned with the murderer’s face over the word ‘Moaty’.
The shirts were selling for £8 each and came in a range of sizes - including one aimed at children aged nine to ten."
So the Daily Mail is talking about the audacity of traders making £8 on a t-shirt whilst they rake in thousands covering the guys actual public execution. Talk about double fucking standards; I'm more on-board with the shirt people.
And this isn't even the only 'horrible people worship a killer' story today. Well, I think that holding him up as a nigh-on Devil figure and painting anyone who sympathizes as satanic cultists (like people who actually believe in satan they're simply idiots) is closer to worshipping him than anyone hocking a t-shirt or crapping out comments on facebook has done.
However to call the right-wing newspapers of Britain the only people cashing in on Raoul Moat would be a dramatic understatement; David Cameron himself, our dearest leader, has personally taken it upon himself to try and force facebook to remove the group that was set up in tribute to Raoul Moat (Facebook told him to suck a massive dick, which is fair enough as they are a much larger nation than Britain).
Anyone who remembers David Cameron before he became prime minister will remember piggy-backing on moral panics as one of his primary campaigning strategies, and this was true to a lesser extent of his deputy Nick Clegg (I've run into two people now who still think the prime minister is Tony Blair and one who didn't know the elections had finished. I didn't check, but I bet all of them knew the names of all the Big Brother housemates).
This is, of course, an obvious load of bunkum to anyone with half a brain; if David Cameron really were so dumb that he thought a man killing a single person then having his head blown off by a shotgun was anything significant, he'd spend 99% of his name twirling in circles trying to name all the similar and much worse events happening all around the world faster than he could possibly deal with them.
If we fixated on the Middle East along he'd presumably vomit uncontrollably until his intestines sat in his lap, as there are almost 300 bodies this week alone, and that's only what has appeared in the news.
I digress; maybe I'm the type of oldie who cares more about the ongoing mass slaughter of Jews, innocents and women than a single steroid addled fuckwad in the UK (Robert Mugabe still in charge of Zimbabwe? Where's David Cameron's fury at him?). If anyone in this country wanted gun-wielding maniacs to stop being a problem (and, on a personal level, to just feel safer with the fact all criminals can get a firearm easily) they would be lobbying for the legalization of guns, otherwise everyone should just shut up and admit that they enjoyed watching a guy get his skull blasted in two on live TV and have the decency not to feed the media anymore on the issue.
If I had the energy I'd tackle female vicars. Maybe in another post, seeing as it's the obsession of my actual go-to news source, The Guardian, who seem to want to have their cake and eat it on any issue to do with religion. Write about how good the Bible is? Sure. Write about how anyone who actually takes its advice on anything is an evil sexist dickhead? YES!
No wonder the religiously dumb of this world as so confused; nobody will tell them where they stand on anything, which is terrible for a group of people who are essentially unified by an inability to think.
* Tanya Gold of the guardian has written more on the David Cameron Raoul Rage thing. And I'm Raoully glad she did. It's a Raoulief to be able to Raoulfer you to a Raoul journalist everyone once in a Raoul.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
It makes me furious when religious viewpoints are allowed to first assume they are true, and then defend themselves as though they were as valid as any scientific theory.
What makes me even more furious is that most people cannot see what is wrong with that.
To demonstrate the fact that idiots pervade every strata of society, Mark Vernon of the Guardian obligingly offered up his apologies as to why Anglican priest and physicist John Polkinghorne can't seem to stop talking about god and chaos theory in the same sentence, and why this *cough* definitely isn't the god of gaps fallacy.
Mark Vernon, who flirts far too closely with religion, probably because if he didn't he'd lose his job (more on jobs where honesty is discouraged later in the blog), immediately puts me on edge with this little gem:
"The challenge is to avoid concocting a "God of the gaps" – a deity whose action occurs in the gaps where scientific explanations apparently fall short. The best known example of this is probably the bacterial flagellum."
In his usual snivelling, apologetic fashion he forgets to mention that there is no "apparent" about the bacterial flagellum having no explanation, at least not beyond the "apparent" inability of science to explain why the universe is only 6000 years old. It was a creationist myth spawned by another incompetent scientist marred by an inability to believe in a god for which there is no rational justification, the ever-twattish Michael Behe, who was promptly smacked down in his court action when he came up against the fact that 99.99% of scientists in his field have actually read about the bacterial flagellum and, whether or not they believe in god, recognize that there is overwhelming evidence as to its evolutionary origins.
Notice the logical fallacy already? Both Polkinghorne and Behe have done what all scientists have to do in order to believe in god; they've decided on what is true first and tried to make the evidence fit.
But it doesn't fit. Like smacking a square block into a spherical hole; if you choose a random idea spawned from humanity's ignorant past (Christianity in this example) and go "THAT'S TRUE", owing to the fact there that are literally infinite things that can be believed but do not exist, you are going to be incorrect and when you go looking for the evidence that you're right it won't exist.
Now, not many people know this, but for most of humanity history there has been no rational discourse, and the "empirical model" was completely outside of the consciousness. In its place was what was called "the authority model", whereupon things were considered true if somebody in authority said them.
Almost all things that were 'known' were known because somebody in authority had said them and the same rule that choosing a random belief will guarantee you're wrong applies; during this entire time the only people who actually knew anything true were the scant few empiricists, who the church was hanging in order to transfer their souls to another dimension full of fire where their cosmic being put his army of fallen demon angels whilst they waited for the end of the world (compare and contrast their views, and remember whose side you're on if you're arguing religion is true, as if that's even a rational claim given there are so many).
Now this is the natural human urge, clearly; most people still exist thinking according to the authority model, and the only reason that's not what is actually done is because people operating on this principle do not have the capacity to do what scientists do, which means economics and politics will always favor science (it's also why I don't sit around trying to 'save' science from irrationality. Money will do it for us; nobody is going to be choosing homeopathy or religion over science because both are bunkum and provide no results).
In essence, no amount of "authority" translates into reality, which is why a nuclear scientist can create an explosion that'll turn a city to glass and theologians are still sat around scratching their arses trying to decide whether to take gods word for it that homos are the devil incarnate.
And yet because theology, postmodernism, homeopathy and all other manner of bullshit dresses up like academia, idiots still operating on the authority principle can't see that their claims are meaningless unless validated against reality. Meanwhile science works entirely on evidence and does not actually assert authority, but this is only comprehensible to other scientists who recognize the fallacy of appealing to authority, which leads to a tremendous rejection of scientific ideals in the majority of the population.
So how does this apply to the case-in-hand? Well, Mark Vernon is a great example of why people think it's significant that John Polkinghorne believes in a god; he is an authority. They do not care for the claims he's making because they cannot comprehend them, but they know he is a 'scientist' therefore he's an 'authority' therefore he should be taken seriously.
It is the same reason creationists go insane for trying to prove that Einstein and Stephen Hawking were religious; they are human beings who operate on the 'authority' principle, as comes naturally to humans, and they don't understand that even if they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that ALL people in authority were religious it wouldn't mean anything.
Reality has no authority.
This is why before something exists you need to prove it; reality doesn't answer to anyone. If you claim something is true then go "you can't disprove it" reality doesn't give a flying rats anus, even if you get people to agree with you. God won't exist even if you get every person on earth believing in it; there is no authority when it comes to things that exist, only facts which are known through evidence.
Back to the article; John Polkinghorne has managed to baffle Vernon into trying to explain his viewpoint from any perspective other than "He's lying or imperfect in his reasoning or even afraid of dropping dead", and he wraps up this drivel on a note which essentially proves the 'Authority model' as the culprit behind religious apologists:
"Whether or not you buy that will depend much on your prior metaphysical assumptions. We all have them. But be they theistic or otherwise, there is a general conclusion that can be posited about science: from the point of view of mathematical description, what chaos theory and reductionism more broadly demonstrate is that most of nature is scientifically underdetermined – which is to say that scientific explanations are limited. "
Firstly: we don't all have them. [This will drive imbeciles mad, because it requires a huge brain to understand properly] Some people operate on logic, which is the antithesis of an assumption.
Secondly: It's irrelevant whether we do or don't have them. Stop trying to "allow" failings of science by saying "we're only human, we all fuck up!". That doesn't excuse anything; if I answered all my coursework questions (yup, I'm studying) "Well, I could derive the equation for this systems action, but actually GOD DID IT GOD DID IT" I wouldn't have explained anything to anyone, and because I'm not an authority figure there'd be no apologists to go "Come on now, hes' not wrong; we ALL have metaphysical assumptions".
"Further, it's not an epistemological gap that's being appealed to in John Polkinghorne's work, but rather an ontological causal openness. Hence the possibility, at least, of making the link with divine action."
Openness? OPENNESS? Are you fucking kidding me? He believes that a GOD is causing everything he says it's causing.
A) what kind of quack definition of 'openness' involves not only a single explanation.
B) That explanation is from the fucking Bible.
Also what is this "possibility" of a divine cause? SCIENTISTS are the ones open to the possibility of a divine cause.REVEREND Polkinghorne is the one who is absolutely fucking sure that the indeterminate nature of things is god secretly hiding there playing the odds and making the things we haven't explained happen.
Why is it people who talk about being open minded are usually the ones who have already decided on an explanation and are pissed of that you won't let them assert it without a challenge? Never mad that you disagree though; the "closed minded" bullshit crotch shot line only ever comes out when they want you to pretend that they're smarter than they are.
Do I need to point out here that John Polkinghorne was raised in a religious society, indoctrinated into religious belief them smacked that religious belief all over science in the vaguest way possible and now just sits there lapping up the confusion it causes in retards who are too stupid to comprehend evidence so they just believe whatever the fuck anyone claiming to be an academic says?
This isn't openness and this isn't a rational viewpoint; this is a stupid (or weak) man claiming something is true then refusing to be dislodged from that position for anything.
And most importantly....
This IS the 'God of Gaps' fallacy
"I was surrounded by men who had cement dust in their hair and sawdust under their fingernails. They had nicotine-sallowed faces that looked like ritual masks, and their hands were as tough and scarred as falcon gloves. These were men who, as one of them told me later, had been shoveling shit their whole lives."
Well fuck. What a crack in the proverbial balls for these poor chaps. This is mostly made in jest, and hopefully it is an over-exaggeration of the truth, however it's part of a trend of abstract terror the author seems to feel whenever near anything masculine. Allow me to read another extract:
"Any smartly dressed woman who has ever walked the gauntlet of construction workers on her lunch break or otherwise found herself suddenly alone in unfamiliar male company with her sex on her sleeve will understand a lot of how it felt to walk into that bowling alley for the first time on men's league night."
I had to check when this was written; although I couldn't find any hard and fast dates, it's been published very recently, so I find myself wondering when exactly this took place. I know that around my area, which is certainly working class, 99/100 times a woman walks past a construction worker they aren't bothered at all, not even the exceptionaly attractive ones.
Now maybe this is because I'm in England and we don't have such a strong culture of going mental at women, but so far there's an undercurrent of "men are this way" when, as far as I can see, she might actually be examining a class-based phenomenon more than a male phenomenon.
For my money a bowling alley won't give you a very good example of anyone, male or female, and I strongly suspect that the fact they had a "Men's League" suggests they also had a "Women's League". Maybe some sort of comparison would have been nice?
In my personal life I experience two groups of people; software developers and physicists. Now both are overwhelmingly male-orientated and yet practically none of what is in this book applies, and I suspect it's because it's far more middle-class.
Yeah, barber shops and construction sites might feel uncomfortable as a woman, but is it really to do with the men, or is it to do with the fact that these are both working class environments, and there's a good chance that the fact they're male working class environments is incidental (it's also worth noting that in both cases there's a real economic reason why it's mostly men; male and female hairdressing is a very different skill and men are born naturally advantaged towards manual construction work, leading to a zeitgeist of mostly-male construction workers).
Look at it this way; would the same woman 'wearing her sex on her sleeve' at a construction site feel half as intimidated in a physics laboratory that was entirely male orientated, or in a room of windows developers? I doubt it.
I can say that in my old workplace it was very female-centric working class. Now for about an hour I thought I was feeling uncomfortable because it was mostly women, cackling louder than they needed to (this puts men on edge) and talking overtly about both their own and my own sex lives, which was sometimes so invasive that it made me feel ill.
And yet all women I've met since have tended to be middle-class, as that's my sphere, and whilst this brings with it new advantages and drawbacks, I can honestly say I can sit in a group of middle-class women and feel my gender is completely irrelevant.
I am not very far into the book yet, so I am reserving judgment, but let this stand as a prediction that I believe Norah Vincent is going to draw a lot of conclusions about "male" behavior that actually having nothing to do with being male and everything to do with your class.
She also believes in a gay gene. More on that fat load of bunkum later.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Isn't it funny how people who rail about "smug atheists" and accuse others of being idiots, dishonest and dumb usually turn out to be the ones who embody those traits more than anyone else?
Holly: why bother posting a fucking free speech comments policy if you're not only going to censor ones you don't like and change the policy to allow you remove anything you don't like? Real life threats and spam are the only conditions that are ever acceptable, anything more is you wanting to pretend you're pro free speech when actually your blog is there as a personal wank.
Well, you're not going to have your comments removed from my blog, and I think the fact that your airheaded, vacuous circle-jerk crap, along with many of the circle jerkers themselves, are going to stand here as a testament to what a total, two faced fuckhead you are.
For some reason, the fact that Holly herself told me she's Jewish and believes that there's an "intelligence behind the universe" seems relevant here; why is it that people who believe in this universal intelligence seem to think it's the type of thing that is impressed by two-faced, childish liars? Did it watch you calling me an idiot and changing your free speech policy because too many people were speaking freely and think "Yeah, that's the kind of woman I want championing my existence?"
No, because it doesn't exist, but as I'll undoubtedly blog about later; it's people who think they're on the same team as perfect, cosmic-scale intelligences who seem to have imperfect asshole-scale one between their ears.
Another e-crime solved.
Oh, I also only commented on two posts. Damn my constant disruptions to her blog!
*I am not even sure it's worth noting that I was actually very pleasant whilst being called all manner of crappy things by this woman and the people on her blog.
Whilst this debate was hilarious and, as with any clique of idiots involved in a circle-jerk, I didn't expect anyone to actually take my side, I did notice a comment by Ariadne who, despite the fact my views are probably unpalatable to her too, made an absolute child out of Holly and the reams of man-children who read her vacuous, self-wanking blog (although half the posts are about her self-wanking, so this is not likely to phase her).
She'll probably remove the comment as she removed mine (it's worth noting I would never censor my blog or anything else; people who can't stand opposing viewpoints, even when it's 30 on 1 and their viewpoint amounts to 'ur[sic] an idiot', are probably going to be the subject of a later post), so I'll reproduce it in full.
Really Holly? Really? I can understand vulgar or generally thoughtless/spam comment removal. But ousting someone because he is too wordy and gets people off topic?
because that whole thing sounded suspiciously like "he's stealing MY limelight WAH"
The context is brilliant, so I recommend you read the lot.
On top of Adriadne simply having no motivation other than strong morals, she quite correctly points out that, in numerous blog entries, Holly rails against a feminist called Twisty Faster, who is a retarded spazmong who owns this blog, for the fact that she openly censors dissident viewpoints and only allows posts that worship her and her viewpoint (more often than not, simply because she's female) to be published.
Now this is, of course, a low and crappy thing to do, and yet as you'll notice that Holly herself decided to block me from commenting purely because...well, let me quote her:
"Holly wrote...Please do not reply to these comments, as your replies will make the thread look funny. Ashur seems to have the kind of idiot tenacity that must write extensive and infuriatingly dense rebuttals to everything, which causes other people to reply, which makes every thread all about Ashur instead of the blog I'm trying to write here.
"Please do not reply to these comments". Dearest readers, please don't choose to talk to somebody. I don't like it. It makes me feel like I'm not the star of the show. I allow anyone to comment because I want everyone to choose to talk to me. I know I should only allow friends to comment if I want everyone to pretend to love me, but I don't wanna! Waaaaa people like him more than me.
Well, fair enough. As long as she isn't pretending to have no problem with people choosing to converse with one another.....wait...what's this?
"Holly wrote...Ashur, this is my fucking blog where people can have fucking conversations without your fucking permission and you need to go suck your own cock somewhere else now.
Except people who disagree, clearly. It's worth noting that that she was replying not to this comment by me replying to a person as follows;
Ashur, go home. You're not going to convince anyone. Either you're wrong, we're all too stupid to understand your point, or you're operating on a different set of subjective definitions from the rest of us. Either way, this isn't productive for anyone.
Hey, I've got an idea; why don't you shove a stick up your ass and try to control a conversation between two consenting adults that you have absolutely nothing to do with and without contributing anything!
Oh wait, you did that already :P"
Comedic gold. So for telling a guy who was instructing me not to argue simply because he didn't think I should, Holly, (who hypocritically talks about how she doesn't like "enemy of my enemy" support here) loudly declares that her blog is a place of free speech....
And promptly begins blocking all of my comments.
Now its worth noting that the few posts I made have generated more comments by up to 10 times than any of her other posts, and even the post about me generated more comments than any of her own articles.
One this is abundantly clear, and I could have kissed Ariadne for pointing it out; although she talks about how she is a proponent of free speech, her blog is actually a circle-jerk in which opposing comments are deleted and bullying is tolerated as long as it's against people who steal her limelight.
Now, let's look back at Twisty Faster. Twisty does not claim to support free commenting on her blog; she outright denied it in her guidelines for posting in which she openly declares up-front that she is going to be removing comments that do not come from within the framework of a "radical feminist theory". Well, as she's a radical feminist that's as good as removing all dissenting viewpoints, but seeing as she has been completely upfront about it there is absolutely no reason why she cannot say this; she isn't misrepresenting herself at all.
The reason I bring up Twisty Faster is because, as much as Holly thinks she's a bitch, Holly herself is a cunt. She is a cunt because she does claim that she allows dissenting viewpoints, even going so far as to claim she will never delete comments (right hand side of her blog).
Now, as of the current date, her claim that she allows dissenting viewpoints is plastered directly next to the post claiming I am an idiot and need all my comments deleted because too many people reply. I, in my infinite wisdom, took a screenshot of this which can be viewed below.
So, at least for today, Holly of Pervocracy has pride of place as the most retarded cunt I've met all week. And to think I was already planning the orgy at our wedding reception; such sweet a thing will never be, for the woman I loved turned out to be a total cumstain.
"All future comments by "Ashur," or anonymous posters with strikingly similar rhetorical styles, will be deleted." - Holly swearing to spend every waking moment making sure people don't talk to myself or people like myself. Not on her watch.
Addendum: It might be worth following some of the links of the people engaged in her circle jerk. I hadn't actually checked to confirm it was mostly men who'd stab anyone in the back in hopes that Holly would one day maybe show them a cuntflap, but it really is. Although I have some examples it really is worth just following them to their blogs. Oy vey, readers.
Monday, 12 July 2010
She crouched in the darkness trying to catch her breath. She clutched her chest, sure that she'd feel her heart beating right through the latex catsuit.
Ashur was there, somewhere, stalking the hallways of Pervocracy HQ. She couldn't see him, but she knew he was going to post again....and he was going to argue a point.
The thought made her sick to her stomach. Cum and Big Mac rose into her gullet and she had to choke it down as she struggled to her feet, fiddling with the safety catch on her Bangun, hoping that she could drop him before people chose to talk to him again.
She limped into a hallway, dark like the rest of Pervocracy HQ, which had gone into emergency shutdown once Opposing Viewpoint levels had reached 1 PPM. Emergency lighting flickered in a doorway down the hall, and she began limping for it, the sound of her own footsteps like thunder, threatening to draw the predator towards her.
The Beast was out there....and he felt that Feminism was a misleading umbrella term for too many opposing viewpoints.
As she staggered forward she heard him behind her. The tapping of keys, too frantic for a proofreader, suddenly brushed away the sound of her beating heart, which froze mid-flow as if an icy hand and closed around it.
Holly whipped around, pointing the Bangun high and praying that she could moderate the internet before he struck.
But it was too late."
Whilst I could write articles on that paper alone for the rest of my natural days, they did deliver me something which I think is, quite simply, a big bucket of badass. That something is Johnny Anglais - the sex education teacher by day, pornstar by night, who was sacked from his teaching job after his secondary line of work was uncovered.
But, rather than apologize, Mr Anglais (of "European Honeyz 4" fame) said....
(from The Mail website)
"'It is something I do in my personal life that doesn't go against anything I teach the kids. There are many more immoral ways to earn money than romping in front of the camera. Lawyers defend paedophiles, bankers raise money using questionable means and large corporations often put finances ahead of the government."
What a badass son of a bitch. He wasn't going to back down and apologize when the system had him in its sights. He told them exactly what he thought despite obvious pressure to do the opposite. You're a true patriot Mr Anglais.
Now I remember being taught sex education; we were told a number of things which, in retrospect, make my blood boil. One was that sex was something done between a boyfriend and girlfriend or a man and his wife and was a bonding process best when a couple were in love. We had a lesson on how to resist the temptation to commit infidelity, and how destructive it could be to sleep with people who weren't your partner, with rather too many masculine qualifiers for my liking.
There was never any mention of alternative relationship forms which, as a person who doesn't accept the validity of monogamous sexual relationships at all (or polygamous ones, but that's another show), makes me question whether or not it was more of a Christian Education lesson than anything, and my teacher, who was fantastic but very ill-suited to her role as an educator in matters of sex, spoke like she scarcely knew what sex was.
I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that I would have preferred to be taught by Johnny Anglais, who looks so damned cool he almost makes me forget that he shares a name with a Rowan Atkinson Character who doesn't exactly embody sex appeal.
Frankly sex education should be completely re-written. Bring the pornstars and strippers and just full-on sluts in. As much as I think Holly of the Pervocracy doesn't deal with criticism very well at all, I want someone like her teaching me about fucking. It seems like the central point of sex, that it is done because people enjoy it, has been completely forgotten in this scramble to act like it's "no big deal", which spawns teachers who look like they must have practiced for about 10 years just so they can say "condom" and "clitoris" without wincing.
But let's not loose focus. Let's tip our hats to Johnny Anglais and his willingness to speak his mind after being sacked by a school who found out that, god forbid, their sex education teacher is so good at sex that people actually pay him money to do the damned thing.
I mean who'd want a science teacher who somebody would actually pay to do science? Or a PE teacher who someone would actually pay to play a sport? It's be madness; the kids might actually be prepared for the real world by somebody who has conquered it!
So Anglais, Johnny Anglais, keep up the good work and allow me to officially brand you "Not Dumb".
Addendum: I was very sorry to hear that "European Honeyz 5" has been canceled and the series handed over to Christopher Nolan for a gritty reboot. Although I think "Honey Begins" is going to be a new take on the franchise, exploring the origins of the European Honeyz and the psychology behind pornstars in general, I was sad to hear that Johnny Anglais' small, hairless male sidekick "Chico" isn't going to feature in the new films. His green knickers will be sorely missed.
The error in hand is "You don't have any disproof of god" or "You have no evidence god doesn't exist", to which the cookie cutter response is "The burden of proof is on you!", however I have observed that atheists are often incapable of recognizing both that theists, by definition, do not comprehend what proof is or why it is needed (and, by extension, why 'disproof' does not apply to their beliefs), and that they themselves have not provided any information simply by stating "You're making the claim; you need to prove it" given that these people don't have any philosophical comprehension of what proof is and how it is used to characterize certain claims.
When addressing this question you have to think about the nature of things which do and do not exist. Allow me to talk to you like a stupid child for a moment, as I explain the nature of extant and non-extant things, even though I am aware that you're probably a stupid adult.
It goes like this:
"Things which exist interact with other things. This is the nature of existence. We can look at these interactions characteristic of the interacting agent and say 'This is proof of a thing". Similary we can look at another interaction and recognize that it is not characteristic of that thing and say 'This is disproof of that thing' in that particular instance.
Notice that both proof and disproof are characteristics of things that exist. If a thing can both be proven and disproven then we know it exists."
"Things which do not exist do not interact with other things. This is the nature of non-existence. We cannot look at any interactions by a thing that does not exist because it does not exist to interact in the first place. We have no interactions with which to say 'This is proof' and we have no interactions to say 'This is disproof'."
Notice that both lack of proof and lack of disproof are characteristics of things that do not exist. If a thing has no proof or disproof then we know that it does not exist*."
*Ahem*, now that the philosophy is out of the way, let's go back to the original person saying "You have no disproof of god". This should be sweet sweet music to the ears of an atheist, because there is no disproof then we have a thing for which there is no proof and there is no disproof. We have a thing possessing all the characteristics of something which does not exist.
Remember my first post, in which I spoke about how it's easy to tell a lie but massive philosophical revelations are required to see through it, including comprehending the nature of lies, truth, proof and how they relate to the physical universe? This is one of those revelations. I will leave it up to you to decide whether 'most' people told that a god exists would come to comprehend the nature of falsifiability on their own, and if not I prompt you to consider what percentage of them would, and does this account roughly for the percentage of religious people seen in your own society? I think it probably will.
*There is one slight proviso here; for the sake of philosophical simplicity we are assuming that all evidence is known, simply because it is a meaningless trick by religious apologists to say 'well it *could* be proven, ignoring the fact that they already believe it despite the fact it hasn't been.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Let me share a revelation I had about religion...
Religion works by telling people a very complicated lie, one that the liars themselves have not yet seen through, before sitting back and allowing them to develop into an adult who will probably never have the intelligence or self awareness to see through it.
You see folks; it's effortless to tell somebody that something is true, but it's nearing the pinnacle of human intellect for that same person to independently recognize the rational nature of the universe, independently develop a concept of falsifiability and comprehension of why irrational propositions do not require considering and, finally, to apply it to something which they may have based their entire life upon.
This idea makes two predictions; the more advanced a society and the smarter the population the higher the proportion of people occupying this part of the spectrum, and the dumber and less advanced the society the more religious people there will be. Does the world support this hypothesis?
Norway and America, folks. Norway and America.
For most of human history knowledge of falsifiability has eluded entire populations (sometimes for hundreds of years), so if you tell a human being in the modern world that a god exists the odds that they will independently discover all of the philosophy required to recognize that this are not so is very, very slim. This is why it is important to teach people the truth, so that they are gifted with a complete understanding of reality without it being dependent on them possessing a fantastic intellect. And it is, of course, easier to make these philosophical revelations if you do not start out on a model of reality which contradicts them.
Let's imagine now that one of these people who has grown up and never realizes that there is no god. To them their religious doctrine is true, and that's the starting point of all reasoning. In essence they leap-frog a single question; "is anything about my religion true?". The logical consequence of this avoidance of a core question is that their religious doctrine gets treated as correct and requiring an explanation and, as their deities and spirits will be forever absent, these explanations will grow infinitely more complex without any objective reality to reign them in and determine which one is "right".
I remember doing philosophy as an A-level, and we often got questions like "If god is good, why is there so much evil in the world?" and "If Jesus died for our sins, can people be evil?". It was religious philosophy.
Whilst dragging up the usual bullshit from Kant, Aquinas, Descartes and a troop of people who scarcely knew why they had to breathe, let alone the cosmology of the universe, I felt intensely dishonest because I knew there was a very simple answer that I was avoiding in order to achieve marks; "Before we discuss whether or not god is good, we would first have to establish whether or not god exists". To my credit, I invariably concluded "But all of this is conjecture; without any evidence that a god actually exists it is meaningless to discuss its attributes". I got 100% in all of my exams, which either means a born again atheist was marking my paper or that, according to my exam board, the conclusion that there is no god is absolutely foolproof.
But what I was doing was theology. I was reasoning about religion. And there is really only one difference between theology and philosophy; theology assumes that the religious entity it is discussing exists before starting its reasoning.
This leads to a precarious situation; if that initial assumption is wrong then all of theology, every single stinking bit of it, has been complete bullshit throughout all of history. It means not a single theological argument has ever been valid, and that their entire discipline is a fantasy based around describing the attributes of beings and entities that never existed in the first place.
Now, by necessity this is true; there are many religions all of which have their own theology. If scientology is right and its theology that Xenu blew up alien souls in volcanoes so they could make Tom Cruise act like a retard is correct, then all other theologies are invalid. If the Christian theology that a Jew died on a cross to cleanse mankind of sin, then all other doctrines are incorrect. If Islamic theology is correct then there's a god in the sky who really wanted the age of betrothel lowered to 7 and hates music, of all things.
Even if one of these gods did exist, the vast majority of theology would be completely untrue. Of course all of these gods are unfalsifiable, and that's where the necessary understanding of both falsifiability and human nature comes into play; if people are claiming something is true, but it's actually unobserved and, more damningly, unfalsifiable, then not only is it bullshit but the people talking about it don't have any comprehension of how to "know" anything on a philosophical level.
Do I need to state the obvious? Theology is absolute bullshit; it's equivalent to (and, in the past, has been identical to) discussing how heavy Thor's hammer is, and whether or not the Red Hulk should have been able to defeat him considering he possesses the Zeus Force and is arguably the strongest character in the entire Marvel multiverse. Certainly Thor has a much higher strength feat than the Rulk, as he shattered an entire planet. That's also a higher strength feat than the Christian God, who actually lost a wrestling match to Isaac, who was human, so presumably both the Rulk AND Thor are much higher than Yahweh on the cosmic power scale.
Of course the real casualty is that it raises the complexity of the religious lie. The more theology is allowed to modify and add to religion the more complex the lie becomes and the fewer people are capable of seeing through it. I am not sure that my intellect alone even explains my atheism; it was reading the Bible, which is incompatible with christian theology on account of the 2,000,000 innocent people killing, baby murdering, vindictive amateur wrestler known as "God" who keeps popping up to piss on everything I'd ever been taught about him.
(2,000,000 people is just the named death toll, where numbers are given. Also worthy of note is the fact that Satan kills 10 people in the Bible, and he's essentially the bad guy for giving mankind knowledge. Sometimes I wonder if that entire book was written to test the hypothesis that people will believe what you say, not what actually is. If you say the murderer is the good guy people will believe it. After all; to disbelieve it you'd need to independently develop a coherent ethical philosophy, and that's just plain difficult isn't it?)
And the worst thing is that, had I been smarter, I might have been able to justify why god seemed to have such a hardon for murdering babies and collecting rape victims for his followers. I certainly can now; "Whatever god does is good". Had I realized that I might not be blogging about the obvious non-existence of god; the complete lack of evidence could have easily eluded me, along with the reason why evidence is necessary at all, and I might be setting fire to an abortion clinic or telling a young child that AIDS is a plague sent by god to kill gay people.
Well, probably not, but this is the problem with theology; I was fortunate that the theology taught to me did not include the absolute morality of god, and that I mistakenly believed absolute morality to be the law of my country, which painted a God who wantonly murdered between spates of absolutely schizophrenic rambling and sexism as a bad guy, which instantly disproved him because I had been taught he was a loving, caring being. But there is theology that covers that, and if it had got to me I could easily have been persuaded to not look closer.
And you know the worst thing? The part that really bets to me? It's that a person with a Theology degree (and a PhD whilst we're at it) doesn't know how much harder my degree was. They have no idea of what absolute bunkum they've been involved in, which means they can't appreciate what a spaztastic mongbat they are.
I think it's a primitive urge. But, like sex with people you hate, it feels good for a few moments, but it quickly begins building up inside you like lactic acid, burning your your insides as you try desperate to fuck one or more retards.
When I look at great intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, who has clearly become utterly addicted to winning mind numbingly easy debates (that is not to say his opponents aren't smart; but Einstein himself would lose religious debates to an 8 year old, where he to take any position that argues there's any form of supernatural), and I hope I don't end up like them.
I am already like them. I can't help myself.
On the topic of Dawkins, I am finding more and more that, like Feminism, the existence of Dawkins and his rabid atheist ilk is giving religious people valid reason to criticize us. I know it's important to lobby against religion, but more and more people are lobbying for atheism. I preferred simply knowing that there was no god, and stating it without shame when it became relevant.
Whilst Richard Dawkins' heart is in the right place, and I don't think he should stop in the slightest (he may be spawning new lines of bullshit, but religion was always total bullshit), I am massively inconvenienced by the fact that religious people seem to ignore whatever is coming out of your mouth and simply remember something Richard Dawkins said and argue against that.
I used to enjoy the changing, flailing nature of religious bullcrap. A bit like hurling a Pipe Bomb on Left 4 Dead; Dawkins has got all the idiots in one place, fighting over one person, and in that way that are easier to pick off, but frankly I don't like lots of idiots in one place.
It makes the place smell of idiot.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
To quote him (Peter) in this article
Jane Asher, a beneficiary of a cultured home and a gentle education, blurts out that all drugs ought to be legalised. She says this is 'the only hope'.
This logic-free, fact-free drivel is conventional wisdom among London's liberal elite.
Why? They say that drug crime is caused by anti-drug laws. Well, so it is, in the sense that all crimes are caused by the laws against them.
If we had no laws against theft, or assault, or burglary, or murder, or fraud, the police would be 'freed up' to concentrate on other things, like homophobia.
But what if drug-taking is actually wrong and dangerous, often ruining the lives of those who do it and of all who love them? Well, it is.
I seriously wish he'd ask his brother for an opinion on some of these issues before blundering on like a bigoted bull in a china hop. I imagine that conversation would go something like this:
Peter: But what if drug-taking is actually wrong and dangerous, often ruining the lives of those who do it and of all who love them? Well, it is.
Christopher: But introducing drug laws doesn't change this. Evidently it doesn't change it. Drug use is going up, and the availability of and variety of hard drugs is increasing. These are things that can only happen after drug laws are introduced. So what if drugs ruin the lives of drug users and their families? If that is true then clearly the most important thing to do is to repeal anti drug laws.
If I could paraphrase him well I'd be writing for Vanity Fair myself, though I think I'd struggle to get on board with the Daily Mail. Still, it's a good example of what religion and right-wing bile can do to a person's intelligence; they're probably matched in terms of IQ, but you sure as hell wouldn't know to read their respective works.
But how do I know this? First off; I have no problem observing what is there. It's blatantly obvious that men and women are intellectually and cognitively identical in practically every single respect. There is almost no justification for separating them on the grounds of gender.
So why do I hate Feminism? It's ultimately very simple; Feminism is sexist.
The fact that 'feminism' is the world's excuse for a gender equality movement makes me blood boil. It starts with the definition. I shamelessly quote the wiki when I describe feminism as;
"Feminism refers to political, cultural, and economic movements aimed at establishing greater rights, legal protection for women, and/or women's liberation."
I hope the fundamental fucking mistake that underpins the entire theory is evidence from this paragraph. This is not a theory even fundamentally designed to tackle gender inequality but to tackle female inequality.
There was a time when this was not a bad thing. The first wave of feminism, which we will say vaguely began at the turn of the 20th century with the likes of Margaret Sanger (it is worthy of note that I would consider her very much a proponent of 'gender equality' and not feminism, and she truly was campaigning for equal, not women's rights), was centered around addressing the laws that specifically disadvantaged women based on how their bodies worked.
In a bizarre way, this is the crux of gender equality. All gender equality spans from the fact women give birth to children, and 90% of female liberation is about giving women the right to not carry out that role. Men can fuck without getting (themselves) pregnant and women can't, and what gender equalists (that term will do for now) were campaigning for was allowing women sexual freedom to not have children which is, lets face it, a life-long prison sentence for anyone who doesn't want kids (myself included).
At this point I am so on board with the first wave of feminism. There is nothing here but a staunch observance of inequality and clever, rational means of defeating it, and I recommend anyone reading this research Sanger because she (along with the PENIS she married) are certainly major heroes of the gender equality movement.
The first-wave of feminism was, to me, equivalent to the "Jesus Christ" days of Christianity or the "Siddarta Guatama" days of Buddhism. The second-wave brought what all shifts towards mass-adherence bring; a whole lot of fucking idiots who dragged the average down to, well, average. And average is pretty fucking dumb when you're handling something as sensitive as gender equality, let me tell you that.
Here's where the bullshit starts.
Second wave feminism shifted the focus from 'equal rights' to actively fighting oppression. Now, keep in mind that, at this stage, whilst there was 'sexism' there was little in the way of 'oppression'. Sure, there was sexism and plenty of it; it was still considered unusual for a woman to be in any technical role, but it wasn't actively opposed. When second-wave feminism began women had practically equal rights under the law. As De Beauvoir observed, women were "the other" sex, but they were not, legally speaking, an "oppressed sex".
Now that is not to say the discrimination was not to as bad as oppression. But oppression would involve an active conspiracy, rather than a simple sexist zeitgeist that was already regressing rapidly and had to cower away in the face of a woman choosing to exercise her equal rights under the law.
But this is a hard thing to grasp isn't it? It's hard to grasp that life can be very hard for a woman, almost devoid of educational and employment choices, but there not be any conspiracy involved. It requires a clever mind, and by this point there were a lot of feminists, afflicted with mediocre intelligence by the necessity of large numbers, and consequently when feminism took direction it was not momentum in the way of gender equality through education, employment and social welfare.
It was, in fact, a religion, where Feminism was God and a mysterious, demonic entity called The Patriarchy played the role of all-powerful, omnipresent global conspiracy to keep women as housewives and child factories forever and ever.
Let's start with a character who embodies what I now call the "Cosmonati Conspiracy"; the idea that magazines and media somehow do not reflect the attitudes of the day but a vast, global conspiracy to beam negative, oppressive messages into the brains of women, causing them to go glassy eyed and walk to the nearest kitchen like a zombie with a hunger to
Betty Friedan's work on The Feminine Mystique (a book that, very usefully, almost ignited second-wave feminism whilst, with retrospect, giving the illusion of rationality to Cosmonati Conspiracy Theorists) underpins this entire ethic, in which she notes that years of women's magazines depicted women in the "Housewife" role, and that these magazines are usually run by sexist men (rude assumption to make I think).
In any case, a seductive notion, that men are somehow manipulating the media to bring about the oppression of women, and the worst thing is that, if that model is applied as an explanation with sufficient hate and mental deficiency, you can make it fit. You can almost believe that it is a conspiracy, if you are blind to the simply power of the sexist Zeitgeist.
Oh and, as a side-note, Joanne Meyerowitz kindly pointed out that some of these magazines criticsed for depicting the 'housewife' role actually depicted the complete fucking opposite.
Does this ring a bell with how feminism is today? Many people who describe themselves as feminists are just about sick of the complete farce that is looking at magazines, pornography and television programs and hypothesizing that, like our English Literature teachers would have us believe during our formative years, every fucking word is laced with triple meanings and subliminal messages but there by shadowy figures with sculptures of penises and pictures of beaten wives in their wallets as part of a global conspiracy to keep women oppressed and force them to remain in the kitchen forever and ever.
But why do they see it this way? Well, you can guarantee that, at the time, Christians were reading those articles thinking "This is clearly atheist/liberal propaganda designed to oppress christians and water down the bible's message" and any Muslims would be reading the same words thinking "This is christians and jews trying to suppress the message of Allah" and UFOlogists would be reading it thinking "I can almost see the scaley hand of the Lizardmen editing this article to remove all evidence of their global conspiracy to inject us all with theri bioslime".
Folks, it's becoming relevant to point out that Feminism, as of the Second Wave, is a fucking religion. Rather than actually promote gender inequality, which would mean looking for ACTUAL sexism and dealing with it, Feminism is based around the idea that anything is the result of patriarchy, and women always need help. And for a while this was true, they practically did always need help, but the ideology, like all religions, underpins everything; it makes ALL magazine articles part of a conspiracy, it makes ALL men conspirators and it makes all media an evil reflection of the patriarchal overlords, who probably never existed in the first place.
Sexism was a natural consequence of an ignorant species realizing itself. It is transient, it vanishes and re-emerges, but feminism is an unchanging dogma of "women are always oppressed". By its nature it cannot acknowledge female liberating, just as the "save the planet" people oppose nuclear power despite the fact that it practically would "save the planet", because their ideology is based around the idea that nature is always in trouble.
And this religious belief despite evidence is apparent in the feminist amendments to the US constitution. They tried to force in ammendments stating that there were equal rights for men and women under the U.S. constitution, and at no point did the fact that the constitution doesn't contain anything limiting rights to either gender get in the way of this. Well, thankfully this was narrowly quashed, but it is a prediction made by, and understood only through, the idea that feminism was designed to perpetually fight for female liberation, even where no oppression actually existed.
Oh, and the name of this piece of legislation which was forced on a document that already declared equal rights for all? The "Equal Rights Amendment". This is not evidence, but it's an intriguing look at the psychology of the movement, a movement that would demand "equal rights" in a situation where no rights would actually be added by the bill they were proposing. The fact that they already had all the rights they were asking for was irrelevant.
Finally, let me get philosophical.
You can never, ever control people. And that's fine, because by and large people are good. Men don't want to oppress women; there is no global conspiracy. You want to know why men oppress women? Well, they don't.
You see folks; there are no men and women. We are all a consciousness maintained by a human brain, possessing a hunk of dead meat we call a "body". There is no difference between the male and female consciousness, but let's say that we could re-write reality, so that every consciousness that ever existed was born as the OPPOSITE gender. Every mind that came to inhabit a male body was born female, and every mind that inhabited a female body was born male.
What would have changed?
Female bodies would still have been oppressed because oppression is not caused by any inherent evil or predisposition towards oppression. It is caused by the fact that human beings are a bunch of dumb idiots. The stronger ones oppress the weaker ones, the ones that don't menstruate oppress the ones who do, because they're stupid shits and they take hundreds of years to learn right from wrong.
Feminism is an expression of that dumbness. It's people with inadequately normal IQs being unable to comprehend that an "eye for an eye" is not the enlightened way forward. It's people whose brains don't allow them to develop a philosophical framework for knowing why ALL people are idiots doing what dumb people do best; getting it completely wrong. They're as dumb as the sexists they fight against, because they are sexist themselves.
Meanwhile I am sat here wishing everyone would just fucking recognize that we're all ghostly mental presences inhabiting bodies which are arbitrarily assigned to be male or female, brown or white, dwarves or giants.
Yeah, sexism exists. But you know what feminism is? It's the necessary half of the problem; in a dumb planet full of dumb people, there's never going to be oppression followed immediately by enlightened balance. It's always going to be one group of fucking idiots hurting another group, then that group hurting them, then that group hurting them back, and it'll be the privilege and curse of a select few to be smart enough to see that they're both a set of idiots.
You can't champion equality by promoting one gender or the other, only by adhering to an ideology that holds equality to be the ideal, and naturally shifts one way or the other depending o social circumstance. Feminism doesn't do that; it's preprogrammed to champion women exclusively, and as a result it has become toxic in a world where the issue has become too-close for it to be about 'women versus men' anymore. The issue is idiocy, and if you believe women need to be uniquely championed in a western country, you're part of the problem.