tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51330300637600581232024-03-13T05:53:45.281-07:00Atheist ApartmentThe Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-15585127224298914752012-07-26T01:10:00.000-07:002012-07-26T01:15:34.999-07:00Back again...againSorry for the long absence. I have recently been feeling that this blog is a bit redundant in the world of atheist blogs and have been considering taking it in a slightly different direction. Anyhow, I haven't quite figured that one out yet.<br />
<br />
Regardless, this post is not about that. This post is just another one of me complaining about something that I read. No surprise, it was the Catholic Church that got me going again. No one, and no organization seems to be able to get me to fly into a blind fury quite like our friends in Rome....or in this case, Toledo, Ohio.<br />
<br />
Perhaps you have heard about it already, but there is an attempt in progress by the Church to rebuke the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for not being vocal enough in attacking issues that the Church frowns upon (please read the second half of that sentence in the voice of Sam Eagle). It is definitely worth noting that the LCWR represents 80% of American nuns.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, today on NPR there was posted an <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/07/25/157356092/bishop-explains-vaticans-criticism-of-u-s-nuns">interview with Bishop Leonard Blair of the Catholic Diocese of Toledo</a>. Bishop Blair is the dude in charge of the above mentioned rebuke. I would like to go on the record as saying that Terry Gross is an excellent interviewer, and that if you have the time please listen to this story in its entirety. It is almost 50 minutes long so you need a good chunk of time to check it out. I listened to the whole thing with my mouth hanging agape as Bishop Blair said things like the following in response to the fact that women are not represented in the theological decision making of the church:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Well, I would say that the interpretation of theology is a work of not
just bishops but also theologians. There have been great saints, women
saints and men, who have contributed tremendously to our theological
understanding, and I'd be the first to admit that in the past women were
not represented so much in theological faculties and things like that,
and now they are.</blockquote>
<br />
The problem with this is not that these women's ideas did not make a contribution to Catholic theology (which is nuts, by the way), but that they had no say in whether or not it would become Catholic theology. That was decided by the menfolk. These saints and theologians had no vote on the matter. Anyhow, there were many such moments, and if you can stomach it for an hour, I recommend listening. I felt like I was losing my mind. I kind of enjoyed it. If you don't have that kind of time, please watch the following video instead while thinking misogynistic and homophobic thoughts (the effect will be about the same):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/U0kJHQpvgB8?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-33146719680887322992012-06-20T22:36:00.000-07:002012-06-21T01:35:01.404-07:00Fun with Bible quotes! Version 1.0Here is some fun. This one comes from 2 kings 2:23-24.
<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.</i><br />
<br />
That is The NIV. King James is even more fun:
<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
</i><br />
<br />
Does anyone else think that sounds like something written by Danny McBride? Gotta love the OT...unless you take it seriously, then that is some scary shit.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-72218544569724566772012-06-19T04:41:00.000-07:002012-06-20T01:53:13.892-07:00FascinatingI read today about an atheist blogger that has just converted to Catholicism. Twisted, I know. I first came across it at <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/06/weve-lost-an-atheist-blogger-to-catholicism/">Blag Hag on Freethought Blogs</a>. I then went to the blog itself and read through her post and the comments and her responses. I recommend checking it out <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html">here</a>. It is very interesting. This is the first I have heard of an atheist converting (reverting?) to a religion. I mean, I am sure it happens, I just haven't seen it before myself outside of the occasional guy who says he was an <a href="http://atheistapartment.blogspot.jp/2011/06/conversion-stories.html">atheist demon summoner</a>. Anyhow, looking at it, I think I agree with her atheist friends that her problems started when she decided to be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics">virtue ethicist</a>. Looking for absolute morality will get you every time. I actually think that believing in absolute morality is a dangerous thing in a very real sense.<br />
<br />
If you go, check out the comments; the ones she has replied to anyhow. Reading their arguments, I really feel like the "mysteries" of religion, the things that make the religious go, "whoa!", really are what you get when a rational person seriously attempts to wrap their brain around a concept that makes no sense.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-17375819538917496582012-06-18T05:48:00.003-07:002012-06-18T05:50:19.862-07:00The religious lifeEvery so often you hear about one of these "right to life" bills or "personhood amendments" being proposed in some state or other. Every so often I write about it. They are something that really annoys me. Basically, these folks believe for some twisted reason that a human is a human from the moment that the sperm penetrates the egg. You know conception. It is a silly notion for a number of <a href="http://atheistapartment.blogspot.jp/2012/04/all-your-uterus-are-belong-to-us-ii.html">reasons</a>, not the least of which is that many eggs never implant. They believe this because they think that this moment is when the soul is ever so gently inserted by god. Anyhow, I would like to look today at another reason why I think that these bills based on the teachings of a certain religion are a bad idea.<br />
<br />
Let's imagine I have decided to form a new religion. There are many mysteries that we could delve into. We could talk about how it has been know to make grown men weep and yada yada yada. But the core of the religion, I shall call it Identificationalism or IDism for short, is that your soul comes from your name. In fact, you don't just have one soul. You have many souls. For instance, if you are a computer programmer, the title "head computer programmer" would be one of your souls. If you are a gamer, your gamer tags and what not would be other souls. All the titles and names and nicknames that you receive become souls, and all of these souls add up to one bigger soul that is your given name. But there is more! Your family also shares one, let's say, oversoul that is your family name. This is the soul that is immortal. There is an even bigger soul/name as well that belongs to and is shared by the church as a whole. That soul is god. You can imagine that apostasy would not be very smiled upon, as removing a name from the church rolls would have a direct negative effect on god (assuming there is only one in IDism).<br />
<br />
In IDism, let's imagine that there is a strict rule about naming children before they are born. They believe that if a child is named before it is born and for some reason it does not make it to term, then that soul will be damned forever. The tradition is that the child is named exactly one month after it is born. They see this as a way to make sure that the body fully enters the world before the soul is implanted, just to avoid any accidental damnation (incidentally, Google spell check has just informed me that damnation is uncountable. The things you learn!). Thus, on the day of the child's, we'll say, monthday there is a big ceremony with the family and the priests and the church members. It is considered a very happy occasion.<br />
<br />
You can probably see where I am going with this. Basically, the believers of IDism would believe that life begins at monthday. They are taught from early childhood that until babies are given a name, they are only hollow shells made to look like people. In short, they are not human until given a name. If IDists were in the majority and laws were based on their religion, not only would all abortions be legal, but infanticide as well. <br />
<br />
This is a pretty extreme example, but I see no reason that, if IDists existed, we should not give any less consideration to their idea that souls are implanted when children are named, than we do to Christians who believe that souls are implanted at conception. This is trouble with souls. They are are 100% undetectable. The truth is, even if souls existed, and I would be <i>very </i>surprised to learn that they did, we would have no idea when they enter a body. The Christians could be right, the IDists could be right, or some other religion that believes souls enter a person <i>before </i>conception could be right. This is yet another reason why I think that this subject should be determined outside the authority of any religion.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-40421831692137968502012-06-08T10:42:00.001-07:002012-06-08T10:47:45.355-07:00Petty barbarian snarkinessCruising through Facebook today I came across a post talking about what is important in life. Someone immediately posted: "<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text">God, Family, Friends, Work, all else. That is the right order!" Lest you think I am being too petty, I will say that it isn't that bad of a list. Naturally, I disagree with at least one item. I hope it is obvious which one I am talking about (Really? You put an invisible person that you cannot prove exists above your family??). I also think that "work" should sort of move around on the list depending on what you are doing. </span><br />
<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text"><br /></span><br />
<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text">Anyhow, I am posting this here because I really wanted to write, "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women." but didn't because it would violate my Facebook policy of not pissing off my nearest and dearest. Regardless, it is a quote best appreciated in an Austrian accent:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/6PQ6335puOc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text">Anyhow. I am done being mean for now. That is good. </span><br />
<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text"><br /></span><br />
<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text"><br /></span>The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-84734084592121471462012-06-05T03:28:00.000-07:002012-06-05T03:28:19.485-07:00Total RecallI am sure I am the only one to think of that title... <br />
<br />
Anyhow, looks like today is the day of the Scott Walker recall election. I admit I am a bit nervous. If he pulls it off it will be a huge win for plutocrats everywhere. Seriously, I don't know how people can possibly vote for someone who is in favor of gutting the middle class. More than that I am sick to death of people going after union employees using the tired and faulty logic that their own job sucks so why should anyone else make a decent living for a hard days work. Don't even get me started on how badly teachers are being treated in all this (or by all means do if you want to get an earful). Anyhow, Scott Walker has become an icon of that particular way of thinking, so come on Wisconsin! Do the right thing! Get rid of this guy! I'll be your best friend!The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-51103652187284380262012-05-31T06:01:00.000-07:002012-05-31T06:03:51.836-07:00How I Became a LiberalIt may be a surprise to some to learn that I once considered myself a conservative. I come from a conservative family. Growing up, Ronald Reagan was our hero. I was too young to understand anything about politics, but I had a great childhood and I had confidence in my parents and there reasoning (I still do actually, my mother is racing to the left at the moment). I continued on my conservative bent on through college; fighting off the revelations of reason I was receiving. As we got into the thick of the Bush administration, and I began to lose arguments badly, I backed off a bit and changed my views to "moderate, with right leanings". This was really the beginning of the end for my life as a conservative.<br />
<br />
I fought the good fight, but at the end of the day, none of the ammunition that I was provided with by right wing ideology was doing the trick. Those who I was debating held the high ground on almost every issue. I began to realize that things I was arguing for weren't convincing me either. When faced with that kind of cognitive dissonance it seems that the only options that one has are to change your mind about some things or plug your ears and double down.<br />
<br />
Ironically, it was a theology professor of mine who told me that an extremist is someone who when they get lost, drives faster. I am not sure where he got the quote, but it stuck with me, and has always reminded me that we cannot be afraid to change our minds when the facts don't match our world view. And that is really why I have become the godless liberal I am today, no matter how I tried, I couldn't make reality fit the image I had had of it.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-43720523214216937832012-05-29T05:26:00.000-07:002012-05-29T05:28:07.154-07:00The CreepsI just came across <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/summer/30-to-watch">this list</a> from the Southern Poverty Law Center at <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda">This Week in Christian Nationalism</a><i> </i>over at Freethought Blogs. I read through a lot of the profiles. I don't believe in supernatural monsters; it's these guys that give me the heebie jeebies.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-81213743981198062222012-05-28T08:55:00.000-07:002012-05-28T08:55:05.297-07:00Unco expertiseSomeday I think I am going to make something up, just for the heck of it, to see if people will believe it. Something like, "Want to cure everything that has ever plagued you? From gum disease to bowl cancer to depression all you have to do is ingest 30 pounds of corn husks a day!" Then, I will say something like, "big pharma doesn't want you to know about this." or "The CIA has known about this technique for years, but you know, the CIA. CIA!" Finally, I will slap on a "wake up, people." or "Open your eyes." I haven't decided which, but I sometimes think it would be helpful if I had more face or more palm. Perhaps both.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-14858667460426494382012-05-25T04:23:00.002-07:002012-05-25T08:03:02.165-07:00Bad ArtOne thing I find fascinating about art is how subjective it really is. Two people can look at the same picture and see two different things. Anyhow, I few weeks ago I was watching the Colbert Report and he talked about this guy Jon McNaughton. I was able to find a couple of his works online. The common theme seems to be Obama's deep and unrelenting hatred for America as symbolized by the Constitution. <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/03/president-obama-painting-burning-consitution.html">Subtly</a> is not really one of this guy's strengths as an artist.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, subjectivity can still creep in there. For example, regarding the piece <i>One Nation Under God </i><a href="http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm">shortpacked</a> has quite a different take than McNaughton's clearly spelled out <a href="http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/353">vision</a>. I think my (least) favorite part of the original is McNaughton's description of the immigrant in front who is stunned by the freedom of religion flowing from Christ. Really though, it is hard to choose when there are so many things to dislike. This painting is like what you would expect from an artist whose parents were David Barton and Thomas Kinkade. You know: crap.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-86982434340377527952012-05-17T16:37:00.000-07:002012-05-18T03:42:59.784-07:00Wade in the WaterI have been reading this morning about a TED talk that was not put on the website because the topic was of a partisan nature. I would like to start off by mentioning that I definitely respect TEDs efforts to not be partisan. I have also not seen this talk (I am at work now, or I would try and find it or a transcript of it), so I cannot really say much about it. This censorship may be a gross injustice to the speaker, or perhaps the talk was a hack job full of pigeon holes and ad hominems, or more likely it is somewhere in between. I can't really say. <br />
<br />
Here is my question, how can one reasonably stay non-partisan when one side clearly rejects reason? For example, global warming is a partisan issue much of the time. Basic human rights are also often a partisan issue. Once again, I don't want to accuse TED of too much, and I do admire people who try to remain above the fray of politics, but if you are afraid to ever wade into those waters, you run the risk of losing the ability to say anything at all.<br />
<br />
Update: I watched the talk. You can find it on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI">YouTube</a>. I didn't see anything scandalizing. Interesting, yes. Scandalizing, no.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-76665125823240658732012-05-14T05:51:00.000-07:002012-05-14T05:52:24.444-07:00Does Not Equal: Part 1Embryos != Persons<br />
<br />
Small Government != Government telling people who they can marry<br />
<br />
The feeling in your "heart" != evidence of anything but your opinion<br />
<br />
Science != a religion<br />
<br />
Mysterious != Magical<br />
<br />
Any others would be appreciated...The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-33531090601366931332012-05-09T05:46:00.001-07:002012-05-09T05:46:37.937-07:00The Douchery of North CarolinaWell, after not having anything really relevant to write about yesterday, we have a outrage double header today. First, as I posted below, the Republican party is hard at work weeding out anyone with half a brain (or ability/desire to govern). Now, I find out that North Carolina has passed their discriminatory anti-gay marriage amendment. I am not sure what they call it, but I will tentatively name it the "There is something that I don't understand and therefor it is wrong and protect the family somehow American patriot amendment." What a load of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/north-carolina-passes-amendment-1?newsfeed=true">horseshit</a>. <br />
<br />
Two things. One: it is totally ridiculous that we can decide by a majority vote what rights people in a minority will have. Not only is it ridiculous, it is scary; very, very scary. Clearly, if you are not presently in the majority, you have no rights. You may have privileges, but no rights. What you thought were your rights were only the good will (and I use the term loosely) of the majority.<br />
<br />
Two: Gays and Lesbians were already (profanity omitted) prohibited to get married by North Carolina law. This isn't defense of marriage, they are on the offense. Offense of marriage. That does sound more like what is going on here. <br />
<br />
Anyhow, I will leave you with this little thought...first go <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/05/08/north-carolina-bans-same-sex-marriage/">here</a> and look at the picture. Next, go <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw&feature=plcp">here</a> and watch the video. Apparently, the golden rule applies in traditional marriage. /snickers The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-30067868565805349792012-05-09T00:28:00.000-07:002012-05-09T02:42:04.260-07:00The Madness of IndianaI do not always agree with Richard Lugar. In fact quite often I disagree with the senator from my home state. However, I am sad to see him go out <a href="http://us.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/lugar-senate-analysis/index.html?c=&page=0">like this</a> as I do have a great amount of respect for him and his willingness to make compromises to get things done. In a time when more and more politicians are acting like that kid in the store whose parent is not going get them the toy they want, Senator Lugar always seemed to carry himself with dignity.
<br />
<br />
With that out of the way, the republican party has lost its mind. I am not saying they are crazy (we have known that for years). I am saying they are being idiotic. This upcoming election is going to decide who controls the hotly contested Senate, and Dick Lugar was a sure thing. Don't get me wrong, Mourdock has a good advantage in perennially red Indiana, but now Donnelly is actually in the race. Factor in that Mourdock now looks like he just took out his own grandpa and, who knows, Donnelly might just win it. Thanks for the opportunity, dorks!The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-70887258233387160552012-05-08T05:22:00.001-07:002012-05-08T05:24:39.470-07:00Back againAlas, vacation is over. Back to work, and I suppose I should get back to blogging as well. Anyhow, I haven't really come across that many fresh outrages recently that I wanted to write about. Maybe I am just getting numb to them. I did happen upon a fun piece over at <a href="http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/the_time_is_finished_religious_sect_erects_billboards_ahead_of_transformati/">Project Reason</a>. Apparently, the world economy will utterly collapse this summer, and people who believe this will be transformed into superheroes or something. It is not as much fun as a real end-of-the-world-doom-love-in, but it is fun nevertheless. After all, the semi-apocalyptic group is led by a guy named de Jesus. And nobody fucks with the de Jesus.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-29518015460192181572012-04-27T08:07:00.001-07:002012-04-27T08:08:48.536-07:00Two sides my ass.I just saw <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151465899/double-take-toons-cold-facts">these cartoons</a> over at NPR. They reminded me of an oft heard mantra about there being two sides to every issue. Without saying which side is correct, when I looked at these toons, I realized that there is at least a little truth to the statement. That is to say, there is a right side and a wrong side. They simply can't both be true. Therefore, one side is complete bullshit. I believe that this applies more often than some would have you believe. All points of view are not equally worthy of consideration as some of them are blatantly false.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-76231125721659200862012-04-23T18:35:00.001-07:002012-04-24T03:06:24.870-07:00Reality wins again!I just read <a href="http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/04/23/update-partial-success-with-american-airlines/">this post</a> at Bad Astronomy. It looks like an interview with the president of anti-vaccination organization, <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Vaccination_Network">AVN</a>, has been pulled from American Airlines' inflight video programming and magazine after a swift outcry from concerned netizens. Three cheers for science and the Internet!The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-39397626203247819752012-04-20T00:25:00.000-07:002012-04-20T00:25:46.798-07:00On the many side effects of cat scratch fever...Ted Nugent, if you weren't aware, is a scary individual. Politifact has his recent speech at the NRA convention in <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/apr/19/context-ted-nugent-saying-if-obama-wins-i-will-be/">its entirety</a>. If you see him coming, run.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-3052564419259365692012-04-19T05:23:00.000-07:002012-04-19T05:23:14.800-07:00Gut reactionI read <a href="http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/2012/04/11/gut-instinct/">this article</a> today on an antivax website. I didn't like it. It suggests that we should always follow our gut instinct. I think that this is terrible advice. I am not saying that we should never trust our instincts. In fact, in day-to-day life there are many situations where following our gut is perfectly fine. The problem is that often in our lives our gut instincts about things are simply wrong. Especially if you have a complex decision to make, the correct decision is often something that is counter-intuitive. In my life, going with my gut has often worked out fine. Other times it has been disastrous. My point is that if you are making an important decision, it is a much better idea to carefully weigh the pros and cons and base your choice on the data. I know that it is very hard to remain rational when we are faced with difficult circumstances (I have failed that test myself a few times) but I honestly think that at those times it is most important to keep our wits about us. <br />
<br />
Sorry, a bit obvious, I know, but I can only facepalm so much without getting this stuff off my chest.<br />
<br />
Also, the author of the above-linked article is in favor of homeopathy, which, while I accept that some people get comfort from the counseling, is really just water and sugar pills. If you have a serious disease or want serious prevention, go to the experts.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/HMGIbOGu8q0?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-3415784690365941412012-04-16T02:13:00.001-07:002012-04-17T02:09:07.280-07:00The Catholic Church cannot be trusted with childrenThe Catholic Church is pretty unbelievable. It would be hard to make up some of weird shit that they have pulled. Whether it is direct <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/us-usa-catholic-abuse-idUSBRE8391HF20120410">child abuse</a>, more <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17442603">child abuse</a>, or <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2012/03/20/dutch-mps-call-for-inquiry-into-catholic-castration-cases-in-1950s/">child abuse</a> involving mutilation, they have a remarkable ability to create scandals involving children. Just yesterday, I read a new article about <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2112003,00.html?xid=gonewsedit">Spain's baby stealing scandal</a> that lasted from the 1950s until the 1980s. It was carried out by nuns who told new mothers that their babies had died and then proceeded to give the babies to families that the church found more suitable. I wish this was a lie. It is so fucking evil, I have a hard time believing that I read it in Time magazine and not the plot of some bad horror movie. I am not sure at this time if the Catholic Church could do anything that would make me say, "surely, the church would never do that!"<br />
<br />
Given all of this, it shows some pretty amazing cojones for this organization to still tell women what to do with their bodies, particularly in the area of <a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/12/after-contraception-controversy-catholic-church-announces-religious-freedom-campaign/">procreation</a>.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-21341042274058552492012-04-15T20:16:00.000-07:002012-04-15T20:16:19.727-07:00Information overdoseI just bought a used computer to use as DVD player for the TV in my living room. It struck me last night that I now have in my apartment six devices that can access the Internet. That means that even if I trained myself to surf the web with both hands and both feet, I would still have two web portals for any guests who drop by. /connectivity level up.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-65669427356035611442012-04-12T08:01:00.001-07:002012-04-12T08:02:45.892-07:00All your uterus are belong to us II.Whenever I hear about <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/02/29/oklahoma-personhood-fetal-personhood-bill_n_1310992.html">personhood amendments</a> I feel like I am going crazy. How little do you value human life to consider a single set of 46 chromosomes to be the same as a real live person who has feelings, desires and dreams. A person who can hear and smell and taste the world. A person who has fears and worries and pain. Someone like, say, the woman this lucky set of nucleic acids find themselves in...The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-20261649392281293422012-04-08T02:22:00.002-07:002012-04-08T05:12:56.747-07:00Anti-vaccinationThis weekend I found myself embroiled in a debate on Facebook with an Anti-vaccinationist. Well, "found myself in" is perhaps the wrong term. I kind of started it. It is one of the issues that I really have a hard time keeping my mouth shut about. Anyhow, things stayed surprisingly civil. I found it interesting that in the midst of our back and forth, my opponent included a link to Google Scholar about the risks of vaccines. I was surprised because looking through several pages of the abstracts and conclusions, I could not find a single study that suggested that vaccines are dangerous or that they should be avoided. <br />
<br />
He also dropped this bomb on me: you can cure autism through a <a href="http://www.greendivamom.com/category/autism/diet-eating-to-heal/">special diet</a> of "clean food". I told him to look up the <a href="http://homepages.wmich.edu/%7Ekorista/baloney.html">Baloney Detection Kit</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/eUB4j0n2UDU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
Rock on.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-12049970901855130072012-04-07T10:30:00.000-07:002012-04-07T10:30:29.924-07:00CommentsComments on the internet often horrify me. What horrifies me more are the comments that are removed. As though the comments that are up are the ones that made the cut. *shivers*The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133030063760058123.post-32353949676260834032012-04-03T01:46:00.000-07:002012-04-03T01:46:30.134-07:00A thought experimentI love reading Free Inquiry magazine. The writers offer up some very interesting perspectives. However, interesting as they may be, due to a pretty busy schedule (and my recent obsession with Call of Duty) I am about a issue behind on my reading. Last week I was on holiday, though, and was able to do a bit of catching up. One of the articles I read was on the dangers of human genetic enhancement. It was an interesting article in which the authors brought up, what I think, are some valid concerns about the subject. It also got me thinking. What if, instead of modifying a persons genes to make them a kinder person, some diabolical parents altered the genetic code of their unborn child to make him a bloodthirsty and hateful killer. Furthermore, after that child is born his parents raise him to believe that violence is good and killing is even better. When he eventually goes on a murderous rampage, is he really to blame? I want to say no. He committed the crime to be sure, but he was only doing what he was given a strong instinct to do and what his parents taught him to do.<br />
<br />
Assuming that up to that point he had no interaction with anyone but his parents, would he qualify for the legal definition of insanity? (Not knowing right from wrong)<br />
<br />
Now I want to try and muddy the waters a little bit. This time let's imagine that the child is taken from his (disturbed) parents just after he is born. He still has the genetic modifications that are meant to make him a killer, but this time he is given to a loving adoptive family. The loving adoptive family do their best to give him a solid upbringing. Nevertheless, one day the young man still goes on a killing spree. Where does the responsibility lie now? He knew right from wrong this time, but his natural instinct to kill won out (I am assuming that this is a strong instinct in this case). Would it be fair for us to condemn him given what we know about his genetic make up? It is not as clear cut as the first case, but I still feel that we cannot. I don't think it is really much different from a person being forced to kill against their will, which is to say, by another person's will (in this case, the original parents'). <br />
<br />
Now to confuse things more, let's get rid of the original parents' genetic modifications all together, but due to genetic chance alone, our young man is still born with the same genes that his evil parents were going to give him that would make him a killer. He is still given to the adoptive parents and still given the loving, nurturing upbringing and still eventually goes postal. Now the biological parents are absolved of this massacre; clearly, they had no control of him or his genes. I don't think the adoptive parents are to blame at all in either scenario as they did their honest best for him. So the blame clearly rests solely on the young man's shoulders. That doesn't seem right either. From his perspective his life has been exactly the same as it would have been in the second scenario. The only actual difference here is that in the one situation his genes were designed to be that way and in the other they were a product of random chance. In both situations, he had no control over his disposition at all. So can we condemn him for it this time? On deep consideration, I want to say no.<br />
<br />
So what can we do? We certainly can't have a bunch of crazed killers running about. So we have to separate the killers from society. Which is pretty much what we do now. However, I would posit that given what I have discussed here, the emphasis of that separation should be on rehabilitation instead of punishment. The question is when should the person be locked off from society and rehabilitated. In this thought experiment I have I have included a person that has an irresistible urge to kill. Someone who no amount of nurturing will help. If you have such a person and somehow know it, it would seem that the time to remove them from society is as soon as possible, before they hurt anyone. That isn't really fair to the person, but then it isn't really fair to lock them up for something they were predisposed to do either, and this way we save the lives of his victims. In reality, however, I am sure no case would be so cut and dried, and we could never know how certain a person would be to commit a violent crime. Still things like this are what make me a) a determinist and b) a person who questions our traditional notions of justice.The Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04136766246513425277noreply@blogger.com0