Month: October 2014

A Short Clarification

Posted by

0

After discussions among peers, it came to my attention that my own personal views about abortion may have been lost in my excessive verbosity. To clear up these misunderstandings, I’ll write a much shorter, to the point piece.

I think Abortion Clinics should serve the same purpose as clean injection clinics in Vancouver. To assume that people won’t have abortions just because they are illegal or hard to find is naive to the point of dangerousness. Given that logic, drugs wouldn’t be a problem at all.

Providing a clean, safe place for abortions to happen could reduce the horrible complications of a botched surgery, save lives, and help those who have made poor decisions. Further, they could be used as a launching ground for education, provide condoms and/or birth control, and provide a thousand other services that benefit the public interest. To simply say “No, they are monstrous,” is callous, and ignores the amazing benefits they could provide.

I hope that helps.

A Real Protest! (Or, On More Ways To Scare People Away From Your Blog)

Posted by

3

It should show how liberal the part of the world I live in is when I say that I saw my first ever anti-abortion rally yesterday. I was so excited, I wanted to go and talk to them and find out what they had to say! I could hardly contain myself! But I was in a hurry, so I couldn’t stop.

What confused me was that one of the signs said “Abortion Exploits Women,” and I couldn’t quite understand that. How does one exploit a woman with abortion? The only true *gain* a man could get with an abortion would be to sneak in at night, abort a baby, and take the fetus away for study. Other than that, I couldn’t think of a reason.

Now, this may be putting words in her mouth, but I would guess her reasoning for abortion being an exploitation of women would have something to do with women being used for sex. If a baby is aborted, I guess that means more sex?

You know what? There may be some logic in there, but only in the absolute worst case scenario for human dregs. Any man who would do that to a woman for sexual gratification only needs to be taken to task; that is the worst behaviour I could possibly imagine… But here’s the thing; in that case, it is the man who is at fault, not the abortion.

Do you think a man like that wouldn’t go to extreme lengths to get the abortion? Having a safe, clean, inspected, certified abortion clinic could save this woman’s life; so-called back alley abortions have any number of side effects, including infections that could end up being fatal. In countries where abortion is completely illegal, any woman showing up at a hospital with a perforated uterus can be sentenced to life imprisonment or death, regardless of the reason for the abortion (or, regardless of whether the abortion really happened). In a place like that, if a man forces you to get an abortion, if he drags you kicking and screaming to a back alley clinic, if he ties your arms and legs down while the procedure is performed, the woman shoulders the blame for it. Is that what it means to be pro-life?

If abortion exploits women, so does birth control, and so do condoms. These are not meant to be exploitations, these are meant to be safety measures. Have you ever wondered about what it takes to have a child? It takes nothing but one poor decision on the part of two people.

What does it take to adopt a child? It takes months to years of screening, tests, inspections, and that will get you placed on a list if you are lucky. It takes years of reasoned thought, decisions, proving you have what it takes.

I am not saying abortions should be used willy-nilly. I am not saying you should be able to just have sex completely indiscriminately, and then go to the doctor for a morning after pill. But I am saying abortion, if used in a way that is compassionate and understanding, rather than painted as some form of demonic ritual, provides a valuable service. Children of rape can cause long lasting mental issues. That isn’t to say an abortion is consequence free, as far as mental issues go, but if you are an unfortunate woman whose child shares many features with the rapist, there is a chance you will never find the ability to love the child.

A common solution provided by Pro-Life lobbyists is to give the child up for adoption. The problem is, there are far more children than there are “fit” parents. If adoption were similar to having children, you could just give it out to the first drug addled person who walked by, and that metaphor should worry you beyond the capacity for thought. Not only that, but (in the States specifically, among first world nations) giving birth can be so financially destructive that the parents have no choice but to perform the birth unassisted. Not only that, but they will not be in a good position to give the child up for adoption, especially if they are parents who have drug addictions, prior convictions under the law, or any number of other issues that would prevent them from seeking public means of help.

Children born to drug addicted parents have other issues to deal with, too. Developmental issues, and I don’t just mean in their brains. They can be born with major physical defects, as well, depending on the issues facing the mother. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is another one that is very common, and you don’t have to be out on the streets for that one. Respectable middle class homes can still lead to FAS children, despite lack of issues.

Am I saying every child that could have defects be aborted? No, I am not saying that. I am saying having the option (and I will repeat this part) in a clean, safe, inspected, accredited setting could SAVE LIVES.

Did you know that a large percentage (by some estimates 25%) of pregnancies end in what is called spontaneous termination? I don’t mean stillborn or miscarriage, those are other issues altogether, though they do feed into my point. Spontaneous termination basically means the pregnancy ends in failure before the mother even knows she is pregnant.

If you are religious, and decide to go Pro-Life, you are left with the uncomfortable truth that the person who performs the most abortions in the world, the person who kills the most babies in the womb, the person who destroys the most life, is God.

The other problem with Pro-Life people is that being pro-life is INCREDIBLY socialist. While I do agree with socialism, and believe it to be the best way to run a country (see “You can’t win at politics”, an earlier post on this blog), many of the people who are pro-life are, confusingly, also anti-socialist. That’s weird to me, because that ignores the fact that offering children for adoption requires a MASSIVE amount of money from the government and other firms. Adoption is not a for-profit industry, and would certainly not function under free-market capitalism, in any way. If there was not a socialist policy to provide for adoption clinics and housing, adopting a child would itself cost likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The other thing is the fact that it seems a fetus (most specifically, in the Southern States, which are the most densely pro-life States in the Union) loses its rights shortly after its birth. Without a social safety net, a child born into poverty will grow up in poverty. The per-capita crime rate SOARS below certain income levels, but that is largely because they have to resort to drastic measures before they survive.

If you want to be PURELY pro-life without exception, you need to provide a solution for poverty. It’s ok, take your time, I will wait.

Until such time as I can reasonably assume a baby will have an equal chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I will stand staunchly Pro-Choice.

The American Dream in action is to force someone in poverty to have a child they do not want and do not have the means to care for, when they do not understand how to leverage those around them for help, so that the poverty deepens and the child doesn’t have a chance.

On How to Scare Everyone Away From Your Blog

Posted by

0

Circumcision, now there’s a funny topic. The short version is “why?”

For those of you who are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, you may recall the tale of Abraham, and the foreskin being removed as part of a covenant with God. Is that not a little weird? “I will make you a father of nations. To prove it, cut off a portion of your penis.” -God
“Okay.” -Abraham

If that exchange were to happen today, I’d be like “Maybe we could do … Literally anything else? That’d be… You know… Nice?”

For as it says in Genesis Chapter 17: “10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.””

I don’t know what to say about that, it is oddly specific. Eight days old, and it is chopping time. You bought a slave? Chopping time. Your daughter married one not of your group? CHOPPING TIME! That is an odd way to enforce a contract. I don’t even know how to make that funnier, really. “Alright, looks like the mortgage paperwork is all in order. We’ve got your downpayment and… Oh, looks like you forgot to supply your foreskin. This contract will be voided if I don’t see a foreskin soon.”

I can’t even criticize the Bible, though; circumcision is much older than written record. There are anthropologists who believe that circumcision has been performed going back nearly 15,000 years (10,000BC is a common estimate), but we’ve lost the documentation as to *why* people did it back then. There are obvious advantages, I suppose, if you live in an arid wasteland wherein hygiene is a long-off afterthought to finding food. But there are tribes alive today that can give us some insight.

Circumcision in certain places in Africa is done as part of a ritual entry into manhood. Is it odd that you become a man by removing part of your manhood? That seems weird to me. Anyway! It is considered an act of bravery to chop-shop your own bits, and that part I certainly understand. It is indeed a brave man who does this.

Some tribes in Australia use seashells to chop (by my estimation, it would be more akin to “rip”) your bits, then staunch the bleeding by dangling your meat ‘n potatoes over a fire of eucalyptus leaves, because at this point WHY NOT?

So what’s the point of this post? Well, as nearly as I can tell, circumcision is a little silly. I don’t buy the “covenant with God” bit in Genesis, and I can’t see why I should have to prove my bravery by ripping skin off my rod n’ tackle. There are some concerns about hygiene, but in the modern world, with daily (or nearly daily) showers, the hygienic concerns are hardly worth being concerned about.

The W.H.O. estimates that there is a complication rate in circumcision of 1.5% to 6% in having circumcision done in infancy. This is actually higher than the chances that you will actually see a tangible benefit from circumcision, and some of the complications (though incredibly rare) can render your baby impotent for life.

Never mind the fact that the procedure is INCREDIBLY painful. Some children actually go straight into shock. You can’t anesthetize the child, either, they are too young and can’t tolerate that.

“But they won’t remember!” Thank you for pointing that out, hypothetical reader. That is the worst excuse. There are drugs that turn off your memory that can be administered to adults; what say you take enough of those to last ’bout an hour, and I beat the crap out of you for 30 minutes.

Is that cool? I mean, you won’t remember it! Never mind the fact that you are conscious the whole time, maybe screaming and crying. If you won’t remember, it is ok!

Hell, by the “you won’t remember” logic, roofies are a way to manufacture perfect consent. You won’t remember, therefore everything that happens in the intervening hours doesn’t even count!

I think I have preached my sermon, so time for a conclusion.

Don’t perform infant circumcision. If the child ends up getting an infection that requires it, do it then. If the child grows up and chooses circumcision for themselves, do it then. (I can’t think of a good reason that a person would look at their bits and decide “Yeah, I’d like to cut part of that off for fun,” but people have historically done things less intelligent than that.) If you are thinking of doing it for purely aesthetic reasons, I’d tell you to be less shallow.

Hey, did you know that circumcision, in the 1800’s, was considered a cure for paralysis? Guy comes into the hospital with a broken neck, and there were no small number of doctors that would, before checking anything else, go straight for the junk. ISN’T THAT WEIRD?!

That’s weird.

So yeah.

Things Tend to Get a Little Weird Around Me

Posted by

1

I do not understand the odd betrayals that one tends to suffer at the hands of one’s own brain. Case in point, I was at a wedding this weekend. For those who know me, you know I don’t drink. For those who don’t know me, but read my blog anyway, you now know that I don’t drink.

So why did everyone there think I was the drunkest person at the whole party?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10626670_10150522694944977_7656761237190265054_n.jpg?oh=bb6325a9486c33caafb3a3a99a8cf4a2&oe=54D0333B&__gda__=1422625325_16578c31230d0cd42f73b0f8640696d5

I am the one in purple, with the tie hanging off my head, and hanging silver tinsel dangling off of my tie.

Why did I do it? I don’t know. Hell, like my friends who DO drink sometimes tell me, I feel shame at some of the sillier things I did. That picture is an obvious example, and the video of me dancing that is slowly making its rounds right now. Mostly the video; I do not dance. To say I dance like a white person is insulting white people everywhere in the world. To say I look like an epileptic on the dance floor is insulting the sense of rhythm inherent in seizures.

In all honesty, I was just hopping around like a fool.

I wish there was a video of my dancing with an old friend of mine; he led the dance, and I am told it looked quite good. I know there are pictures and videos *out there*, cameras were going off the whole damn time we were on the dance floor, but as yet I’ve been tagged in none of them, and I am sure they were taken by people at that wedding I did not know. How unfortunate.

Long story short, we live and we learn, and when our brains betray us, we write excuses on the internet.

C’est la vie.

In any case, congratulations Corey and Tamara, on tying the knot! I hope you will find happiness. Justin ‘Bubz’ Vany, thanks for singing that wonderful first dance song! And for being generally awesome!

Paul, thanks for the dance, and Finny, thanks for being in the background of most of the photos of me, looking like Walter White closing in to take out a rival dealer.

I’d say thanks to the many phone-photographers who captured my drunkest moments, but I wasn’t drunk, and every moment was simultaneously my drunkest moment.

An Expansion of Objective Morality

Posted by

0

The reason I write this blog is not to shove my opinions in your face, but to invite comment. I mean, if my opinions and evidence sway your thought, I can think of no higher praise; for another being to think that my thoughts are even worth considering is high praise to me, and I thank you all for reading.

However, if you find my views dissatisfactory, whether in lack of evidence, lack of reasoning, lack of logic, or simply lack of a proper foundation, I would like to hear it! I really, really would.

To that end, I am glad beyond all reason, and thankful for a person who has argued against my views on Objective Morality. You can read the exchange at the following link, in the comments section:

https://chadsrandomrants.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/the-various-forms-of-objective-morality/#comments

Feel free to join in, or not, or do. I am just happy to have someone call me out on my bullshit, and I do hope it happens more in the future!

And Also Dinosaurs

Posted by

0

You know, while discussing my blog post yesterday with another party, it occurred to me that what I laid out was only MOSTLY silly, but not truly “Clown high on narcotics” silly, and that just would not do.

You know, dogs eat grass, so lions could have eaten grass. II can’t make fun of that as HARD as I want to. And I remembered how I could do that; dinosaurs.

Before the fall, friends, it is worth noting that dinosaurs lived in paradise with Adam and Eve, existing free of sin, and not in any way fighting each other. Do you know what that means? It means the Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian.

It means this:

Was used not to tear anything, but to delicately grind up leafs.

It means this:

Could have attended a tea party with a Disney Princess, and all of her animal attendants (adorable and delicious though they may look) without raising anything like fear in their hearts.

Allow me to help you get over some childhood trauma. With my masterful manipulation of MS Paint!

Since everything was vegetarian, this probably happened.

The Land Before Time was lying all along, and everyone got along just fine and Littlefoot’s mom did not die! We all win in the end!

Desperate Lengths

Posted by

0

Apologetics is an interesting field, as it relates to religion. For those who are not familiar with the term, it is not the idea of saying “Sorry,” but comes from the Greek apologia (meaning to speak in defense of). It is merely a word to describe the defense of ideas, through information. It is most often employed by those in Religion (you’d have to do some deeper research as to why religious people enjoy the use of this word so much), as those I speak with outside of religion more often call it “defending your ideas,” or simply “debate.” That is not the point of this post, though.

This video is the point of this post:

Did God Design Parasites? – Season 3 Episode 15

In this video, they have a Zoologist speak about what animals did “before the Fall.” For those not intimately familiar with Young Earth Creation timelines and theory, I will elaborate somewhat. I will even *try* to keep my ridicule to a minimum, but this topic is so silly it will be difficult.

In the beginning, God etc, and it was Good. YEC Christians have interpreted that statement very, very literally; for something to be perfectly Good (and for God to have called it *Good*, it would have to be perfect), it must be without sin. Well, thou shalt not kill is fairly clear, killing is one of the 7 sins that ranked up there with the purely theistic infractions of the ten commandments. Here’s the thing, though; if *EVERYTHING* was Good, this must apply to animals.

What does that mean? It means there were no carnivores. It’s not that they didn’t exist, it is that they were vegetarians before the fall. And here’s where things get *fun* for people like me who are jerks and like to poke fun at things; when The Fall occurred, and sin entered the world, everything changed.

But how did it change? Animals started killing each other, for food. You must remember, of course, that this is a sin. So now, let’s light a hoop on fire and watch YECs jump through it. Bring some popcorn, and a lawn chair. It is so much fun!

First, they justify all the body parts of carnivores that are SPECIFICALLY for eating meat through a vegetarian telescope. In the linked video, for example, the Zoologist tells us that the proboscis (read: itch lance) of the female mosquito could have been used to surgically remove certain plant materials that are similar in function to hemoglobin.

For another fun image, imagine a lion using its sharp teeth to eat tree leaves; their justification of course is that dogs eat grass, so lions could have, too! Now, I’ve watched my dog eat grass, then locked him in a cage while I went about my day’s business. When I come back, there is grassy throw-up everywhere, and he looks sad like he knows he did wrong. It wasn’t wrong, but it is difficult to impress that upon him (like the time he *ate* his dog bed, and was pooping foam for three days). The point is this; the digestive system of the dog is not meant for fibrous plant material, and that is clear. Even if the lion *could* properly digest the grass, instead of pushing it through their digestive system like so much Liquid PumbR, how would they eat enough of it to LIVE?! I mean, watch a goat eat grass for a while. Not only is it calming, but you’ll notice that they can grab a mouthful of the stuff due to flat teeth spaced closely together. Looks at the teeth of a dog, or a cat if you’ve got one; sharp, but also spaced out. That’s why, when they eat grass, you’ll see them almost *fight* the grass to get it into their belly.

They talk about this for AGES, because it is (I guess?) very important to them to spread the idea that there was no sin and thus no death before Eve ate the apple (and also Adam, as an afterthought).

I am not so deeply familiar with this that I can tell you what viruses and bacteria did before The Fall, though I am sure that is like watching YECs jump through 12 flaming hoops over a shark tank on a motorcycle. I should look that up.

This gentleman speaking goes as far as to say that parasites did not exist before The Fall. Well, that was 10 times more boring than I had hoped, but now I have the idea in my head of The Fall, with Adam and Eve having had NO immune system, causing both humans to instantly spew fluids out of EVERY orifice shortly after bacteria and viruses found their soft, fleshy bodies (omnomnomnom).

So how does this relate to Apologetics? Well, the definition of apologetics SPECIFICALLY mentions “with information.” Well, the idea that everything was vegetarian before The Fall can only be considered information in the event that the following can be considered informational:

“Our specific interpretation of this specific passage written over 3000 years ago and translated into our native language COULD be taken to mean (possibly) that nothing died (maybe) before God got mad at humans for eating from the tree he knew they would eat from before he created them (because he can see the future), and this leads us to believe (probably) that nothing killed anything else before The Fall. Ummm… Q.E.D.? So yeah, no carnivores.”

Well, when you base your science on such solid foundations, how could anyone ever find your ministry of Apologetics dissatisfying?!

I am the Most Selfish Person You Know (Don’t read this please)

Posted by

0

I am not going to advertise this post. Actually, if no one reads it, that is fine (I’d even go as far as to say ‘for the best’). This is another post where I just want to put my thoughts down somewhere concrete where I can read them when I need to focus. This is the kind of thing I would write in a journal, if I cared to keep a journal. (I used to keep a journal, from my earliest struggles with depression, but even when I was depressed and rereading it, I was like “Ugh, listen to this angsty teenager. No wonder he feels that way.” Then I stopped doing that, as it was, at best, not constructive, and at worst, actively harmful to my own mental well-being.)

On the bright side, anyone who does care to read this will know (again) more about me than they knew before.

It is odd, too — I was thinking about writing this early this morning, before I had even read the news that a Dota 2 personality had committed suicide last night (http://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/2i2nb2/exdota_2_caster_commits_suicide/). Be careful going to that link, it actually contains a referring link to the person’s publicly posted suicide note. The suicide note itself has a stream of comments of people trying desperately to save her, calling every available service, trying to get her address, and then… at the end, just, flatly “She’s gone.”

As someone who suffers depression, and as someone who knows (rationally) that it is my brain being a jerk to me, it is still easy for me to feel weak. Things that other people are able to get through leave me a wreck of mental anguish. Something silly, like a project that didn’t quite go perfectly, and I am thinking about everything that went wrong simultaneously, and then I am a drain to the happiness of everyone around me.

I tend to have a very rational mind, and I pride myself on it; that may just be my ego, but my mind has proven itself time and again as able to solve problems that others have thrown at it as difficult or impossible. This is a reminder for myself more than it is bragging; I am able to solve problems, and it is a skill I am very good at. I have to remind myself of this in my darker times, mind, when I think I am good at nothing; if nothing else, I will accept that I am able to solve almost any problem thrown my way.

So why can’t I solve depression? I don’t know.

Now comes the part where I blow your mind with how awful my brain is when it comes to applying numbers to things that have no basis in math. Suicide, as a mathematical construct. There’s something you won’t hear often, surely. I have realized, in trying to write the full calculation down, that there are so many variables that I cannot eloquently write the equation (I’m not a math major).

I had written another full thousand words breaking down my equation, the variables, the values, and giving examples. It then occurred to me that without several thousand more words, I’d still have only the most basic elements of my equation. Suffice it to say, if a decision or the completion of an action results in a net positive increase in my overall happiness, I generally try to make that decision or achieve that action. There are (obviously) variables out of my control, so even if I take the time to try to make a certain decision or action occur, it is certainly not guaranteed the decision or action will occur.

The afterlife, whether it exists or not, plays a large part in any equations that deal with my own death. If the afterlife does exist, I will be in a position to see the outcomes of my action or decisions that lead to my death, and therefore the suffering of others will become very apparent to me. If it does not, the fallout of my actions is effectively zeroed for all future calculations. That is another of the many reasons I harp so frequently on religion; I am not confident either way, and I hate not knowing. I know I will not know until after my death, so it almost seems a fruitless endeavour, but I am trying to seek some sort of comfort.

Now to the part where I comfort you, the reader, rather than trying to comfort myself; no matter how I run the numbers, contemplating suicide ALWAYS has a negative or zero outcome as it applies to potential future happiness, and being as I would have to put effort into achieving even that zero, it is something that is never to me a realistic option. I can guarantee you I will never kill myself unless something happens that DRASTICALLY changes the numbers. That’s right, math is keeping me alive. How weird is that?

This was rambling, there is no intro, and no conclusion. Just things I wrote down. I’ll try to come up with something else funny to write so that I push this post down and no one even notices that it was ever here.

Arguing Ad Absurdum Ad Nauseum

Posted by

0

Can We Trust the Bible? – Season 3 Episode 26

I have spent the last two days preaching understanding and finding common ground. This episode of Creation Today is so mind bogglingly frustrating, I had to write about it. I just really, really had to.

First, they are decontextualizing a statement by Bill Maher painting all religion as bad, extending that argument ad absurdum, then “refute” it by supplying further absurd arguments. Luckily for me, they managed to tie everything I have been talking about for the last few days together all in one nice little package of ignoring ALL OF MY ADVICE FOR GETTING ALONG. Fine, Bill dropped the gloves, you decided to punch everyone because of him, so I am picking up my own gloves and punching back.

You will have to watch the video for Bill Maher’s exact statement, but it comes down to the foillowing: Religion is a negative force, as it has caused major wars, supported honor raping, honor killings, suicide bombings, protection of pedophiles, etc.

Now, everything Bill Maher said is, technically, historically correct; religion has been used to justify all of the above in the past. To be fair to Mr Maher, he did catch things that are identified primarily with Islam, and also identified things primarily associated with institutionalized Christianity (essentially, The Catholics).

He is an asshole, so I can hardly be mad at their response. Let’s see what they have to *RAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEE*. Oh, sorry, I blacked out for a second there.

What?! That’s their response?! For those of you that cannot watch the video due to being at work, I will speak about it while exercising my willpower to prevent myself from blacking out from the sheer disingenuity of their argument!

“Bill Maher is saying all religions are bad, because some of them have done these things. Therefore, we have to ban cars because they cause accidents, we have to ban bats because people can use them to kill someone, we have to ban paper to protect the people from paper cuts!”

Bill Maher left himself open to ten thousand arguments, and this WAS NOT ONE OF THEM. Cars are regulated, licensed, sold only to people who have proven some level of responsibility. If someone is running at me with a bat, I am going to defend myself. If you are afraid of papercuts, you generally (doubly so in the information age) do not have to handle paper.

Your argument is so vacuous and pointless I think every time I think about it, my mind goes completely blank. It is making this post very difficult to write, and people keep commenting that I look like I am just staring blankly into space.

You could easily counter Maher’s argument by putting it in context, for example — in first world America, Christianity is hardly ever used to justify killing! (Bigotry, though… Well, it justifies that plenty.) Instead, you reply to his absurd argument with an absurd argument, and you have left me so many openings to hit you, there are so many holes in your defense, I am standing here, confused, wondering where to attack first!

Let’s go with religion justifying slavery, as I know you hold very tightly to the Bible. The original Hebrew word ‘eved’ is often translated as ‘slave’, and best know that the holding of slaves is a Biblical INSTITUTION. The counter argument received, to show that Christianity does not support slavery, is that slave really just means “worker” or “servant”, so really, it doesn’t mean “owning slaves,” it just means “having employees.” It was all just a silly misunderstanding! Tee hee!

NO! Screw you! I went and looked it up! I went and studied a brief bit of Hebrew, just so I could talk to you about this! So sit the eff down and read!

Eved means more of an indentured servant, as opposed to ‘sakhir’, which is used to denote a hired worker. What are the rights afforded to someone who is an ‘eved’ then? Well, first, they get no wages. Nothing. You keep them alive for the purposes of work, and they get what you give them. Further, the owner retains “patria potestas” (Originally in Roman Law, but still effective in the Bible) over him; this denotes ownership in terms of property law. You choose what your slave does, who he marries, whether he lives or dies, how to punish him. Oh, don’t get me wrong, you COULD certainly pay your slaves. They COULD be your workers. The Bible does not sanction minimum wage, living standards, work hours — that is all secular law. So is this starting to sound familiar?

They aren’t SLAVES! They are just workers we don’t have to pay, that we can beat, and that we legally “own”. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING!

Further, as per Exodus chapter 21, a father may sell his daughter into slavery. He may sell his daughter to someone, that she would work for him without pay, and so he can marry her to another of his slaves. BUT THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM HOW WE KNOW SLAVERY TODAY, GUYS! Also, the Bible explicitly states, further, in Exodus 23:12 that any child of a slave becomes the property of the head of house, and will work for him, and will receive no pay, and functions specifically as property. BUT TOTALLY A DIFFERENT THING, THAT IS NOT SLAVERY, GUYS! REALLY!

One last bit of Bible for you, then, before we move along. Deuteronomy 15:15 “Thou shalt remember that thou were slaves in Egypt.”

Oh, you were just workers in Egypt, not slaves! No problem, then. Hell, why’d you even run away? Being ‘eved’ isn’t so bad, that’s what I’ve been told by apologists. But no, your God himself compared what you do with your property with what Egypt did to their slaves; remember that. The only thing I have been able to find that truly tempers your power over your slaves is that a master may punish his slave as he wishes, but leave no permanent wound. Well, there you go; you can take the child beater’s logic towards the humans that you own. Cheers.

I think I have illustrated the above well enough. So you are good, Bible believing Christians, and you just “word play” away the parts that you don’t like. The Bible certainly does sanction and set down rules for the ownership of human beings. You can word play that “well, we COULD pay them…” as much as you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that your own book says it’s cool guys, go to town! (Except for Jewish men. You can’t make slaves of Jewish men! Jewish women, though…)

Alright, let’s move onto Islam, as it is preached in Qur’anic literalism. (I still love you, Reza Azlan, don’t be mad at me! I know you choose to think of Religion as imagery and metaphors, and I respect that and respect you! This is Qur’anic literalism, which I hope you will understand if you ever read this!) In the Qur’an it frequently references themes such as this, found in Chapter 9, verse 5: “Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

You can claim that is imagery, or not in the theme of the Qur’an, or out of context. I don’t know, I am used to Christian Apologetics, I am not used to debating the tenets of Islam, but to an outsider, it is easy to see from whence the extremists in your Religion take their inspiration. And please believe me, I know they are extremists, but they are still using clear words from their Prophet, and following his commandments as best they know how. This is not a function of the message, this is a function of the understanding of the message.

I am prepared to accept that Religion is a net good force, but I am also going to ask you to admit that there are pieces in the two most widely accepted doctrines (Christianity and Islam) that leave themselves open for interpretation by those seeking to do harm to the world. So the question is what do we do about it? Please read that last sentence again, by the way. Notice how I said “we”.

We all have to work on extremism together, because it affects all of us — but it helps no one (NO ONE) to say “Well, the extremists are misinterpreting our [Name of Holy Book].” Saying that makes no difference. Saying religion is a positive force on the whole does not make the extremism go away. “Look, I am a good person for literally 99% of the day, but you know, I just hit my wife once or twice every week.” That is what it sounds like to someone on the outside of you religion when you say “We are mostly a force for good!” Look, I want to help you with the small percentage of people who have taken your Book in a way that disagrees with you. I am willing to help you with educating people, insiders and those outside. I will help people who do not know the Bible understand the good points it makes, and I ask people intimately familiar with the Qur’an to do the same.

Woah, I got sidetracked there. Where was I? Right, vacuous replies.

Technical definitions! Atheists will often say that it is impossible to ‘know’ anything, using the technical definition of the word. To know, as it is used in technical writers, implies 100% certainty, which is (as a scientific construct) impossible, or nearly impossibly to achieve. To say “I am a caucasian male, I ‘know’ that,” leaves open the door that perhaps I am in a coma, and this is a dream. Maybe I have brain damage, and my perception is wildly skewed. To be fair, I am *reasonably certain* I am a caucasian male, but even then, reasonably certain has scientific connotations (technically, I am certain I am male, p<.01). I have not done a strictly statistical analysis, but this is more illustrative than literal.

The reply of Eric Hovind in this argument? “Well, you said you can’t know anything. I win, because my God told me what is written in the Bible is true, and I know he is true, so bam! I win. Q.E.D.” To use the argument that “My God told me that the Bible is literally true,” without any further justification is just… Well, the worst I can say is that it is not playing fair. Atheists are trying to play by the rules of formal debate, in this specific instance; define the word (and they have laid out definition for what is to ‘know’), and Eric Hovind (as well as so many other of the religious persuasion) ignore that definition.

You know what? Atheists don’t even have a limb to stand on, aside from “We are sticking to our guns because it is fair.” Christians are not formally debating, and you are being silly by sticking to formal debate rules. In fact, formal debate rules allow for you to use your opposition’s own definition. “My God said this is true,” is a valid proposition for what is “to know”, therefore you can counter with “My reason dictates,” and we all move along. To stop a debate from moving forward because two sides are having literally the MOST BORING pissing match ever (a pissing match OF WORDS) is just — stupid. On both sides’ part.

So Eric, stop being a prat. And ignore Bill Maher, most respectable atheists are comfortable ignoring him. I think that’s really the point I wanted to make here.

On “Reasoned” Bigotry

Posted by

0

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/29/on-cnn-reza-aslan-explains-how-the-media-is-fai/200942

Bill Maher. Now there’s a guy. Always has a can of bigotry to throw around.

Now, let’s be fair; he is a comedian, and most of what he does is to get a reaction — but that definition is the exact same definition one can apply to a bully. I actually couldn’t watch the full length of his… Well, it is called a “documentary” on paper, but his movie Religulous. It is less a “documentary” and more “making religious people feel awkward and confused.” It has been years since last I even tried to watch it, so I cannot quote it, but my heart went out to the religious people he was speaking with. There is the reasonable approach to getting people with dated beliefs to join the 21st century inclusive society, and then there is… that.

Now, he is paid to be over the top, in the same way that Bill O’Reily is. (Is it something about the name Bill? Most Bills I have known have been a little over the top, and hold very aggressive views. #WhatsInAName) As I mentioned just yesterday, though, this is lowering the level of discourse.

So what brought all of this up? Well, Media Matters released a video of Bill Maher speaking at some length about the problems with Islam. The woman hating, the bigotry, the racism, etc. Reza Azlan, one of my personal heroes, is interviewed regarding what Maher said, and he takes his interviewers to task. Reza Azlan, despite GREAT opposition, tries to raise the level of the debate. “Women are treated poorly in Saudi Arabia, therefore all Muslims treat women poorly.” Azlan’s response carries his characteristic level-headedness; “You can’t paint a religion based on one country when the population of the religion is 1.5 billion.” He provides counter arguments, he provides examples, he provides wonderful replies to his increasingly flustered interviewers, because that is who he is.

I am not so level headed as Mr Azlan, and I am sure you’ll understand from having read my blog. My reply, the very first thing I thought when I heard these interviewers, and when I heard Maher’s speech, was “Well, there are known pedophiles in the Catholic Priesthood. Does that mean all Catholics are pedophiles? There are known racists among the Baptist Churches. Does that mean all Baptists are racists?” No, you’re being silly. I will admit I am not well versed in gender politics as it relates to Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, but if a man who has written books on the subject tells me “The majority of Muslim countries have a large amount of gender equity,” and then proceeds to give me empirical examples (that I am free to verify), maybe I will check my opinion and rethink.

That blade does cut both ways, though. Bill Maher is an asshole, but I’d like to think that painting all nontheists with a brush based on his template is just silly. What’s really funny is that I think Maher does more damage to reason and rationality than he does help, especially because in atheist circles he is often well liked. Up until a few years ago, I would have said he was universally liked. You know what hurts more than anything, though? Atheists in public positions actually have to denounce Maher’s often bigoted opinions, because they DO get painted with the same brush.

So hey, let’s stop being assholes to each other first, then after that we can start to come together and decide what we all believe in, and we can stop calling each other bigoted racist faggy pedophilic necrophiles.

If you are, in fact, a bigoted racist faggy pedophilic necrophile, I am sorry to say this, but you’re kind of like… Messed up. You should go get that looked at.