Now that pompous mayor Ralph Becker and his idiot cohorts
want everyone to pay for parking until 8PM (instead of 6PM like it used
to be) on weekdays, here's where you can park for free in Salt Lake:
In back of the Salt Palace next to the Buddhist Temple: http://tinyurl.com/9gcvecn
Take the train, which is free to downtown from the Salt Lake Central station:
http://goo.gl/maps/3zkSy
Parking
at the second place is not limited to 2 hours. Park there and take the
free "trax" train to the malls & so on. You can also take the train
to the nice big library: http://www.letsrideuta.com/tag/free-fare-zone/
Parking on Saturdays is supposedly still free, but check the signs on the new meters they've put everywhere.
Here's another key reason why Becker is an idiot:
http://westviewmedia.org/soccer-complex-on-hold-by-michael-mcfall/
...his attempts to destroy a part of the Jordan River parkway.
Jordan River Restoration Network: http://www.jrrn.org/
Previous
attempted contact with Becker over these issues reveals the man is very
pompous and has placed himself on a nearly unreachable pedestal.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Tag along friends, and problems with Ambien and Mormonism
There's this woman named Cindy who's a tag-along friend to a sister of mine. She was unfortunately converted to Mormonism in Ohio while my sister was there on a Mormon mission. Cindy has an issue with knowing what to say when. She's been fired from many jobs not only for this, but also for stealing money. She's also stolen money from my father. She's rather like a leech.
One additional key issue is that Cindy acts like she is a family member, a sister, and she takes liberties assuming she is, liberties revolving around making snide and derogatory and cutting remarks when other "family members" (according to her small brain) act in a way which she doesn't like.
In December of 2010 I dumped Cindy from my facebook friend list. During that holiday season I decided to have less contact with other people because of some epiphany work I was going through. She became angry at this and made a cutting remark then. Then I dropped her from my facebook friend list.
Subsequently I heard that she had stolen money from my father (hearing this from him), and that she was continuing to ask for money on a frequent basis from him.
My sister who went on a Mormon mission to Ohio has had a problem with Ambien. She also used to live the life of a rich woman, spending her days in the fluffy dream world of someone who need only concern herself with clothes, shoes, horse riding & training, spas, facials, and so on. Then her now ex-husband went bankrupt and she divorced him. Then she went straight onto Ambien. And Cindy was there during the Ambien years, acting as a bad influence, and apparently helping my sister get even more Ambien.
You know how some pretty women have tag along less pretty friends? Well, Cindy is the much less pretty one, and she's also been a bad influence - especially during the high Ambien fuelded druggie days of my sister.
My sister is in recovery from Ambien, and her brain is slowly coming back. But there's still division in our family revolving around her own past addiction and choice to use that terrible drug. But I think that division is also connected to Mormonism.
So now we come again to the wedding of another sister of mine. This Cindy woman was invited to another sisters wedding, because this other sister lives far away and is fairly disconnected from what's happening with the family back in Utah - by her own choice. But because she's disconnected she doesn't know that it's not really possible to just assume things are a certain way when they are not.
From the first entrance of myself & my wife into the wedding room Cindy demanded to know why I dumped her as a Facebook friend in December of 2010. I told her I didn't want to talk about it. Later she asked if she could take a picture of myself, my wife, and our new son, because she claimed she was doing this as a favor to my sister who was getting married. I told her "no thank you." Then she said "your loss."
As I was preparing to leave with my new family I walked over to Cindy and told her "stay the fuck away from me - you are not part of our family." She responded "how rude." But this woman has spent her life making rude and cutting remarks to other people.
My Ambien-damaged sister should realize that when people were upset that she was destroying her life with her use of that terrible drug, that we were trying to do her and everyone a favor.
In Utah there's a lot of women on anti-depressants. Why? Because Mormonism drives them fucking crazy. So perhaps it's understandable why one of my sisters went down that path. But, on the other hand, I have no obligation to treat as a sister a friend of hers who tries the take the liberty of assuming she's a sister of mine. And, I also am not particularly pleased at the turmoil Ambien, and indirectly & directly Mormonism, has played a roll in dividing my family and keeping us apart. Also if it weren't for Mormonism, this retarded fat ugly rude tag along woman named Cindy would have never come to Utah, as a moocher and tag along little puppy friend to my Amdien-damaged sister.
Now, as my own father has dementia, and as our family drifts apart, at the very least I have my own new family.
When you see how fucked up your own older family can become, at the very least you can determine to try to do something different with your own. And one important thing to recognize is that passive aggression is still aggression. Mormon people are famous for this. They say they love you and want to care for you. But they also believe your views of the world are evil. So in the end they really aren't nice people.
People who believe you're going to hell (or in their case, not to the highest level of heaven) because you don't kiss the ass of their god & prophet aren't nice people, no matter how many batches of cookies they may also bring to your door in the mean time. It's a means to an end for them.
And, if it weren't for Mormonism, my sister would probably have never gotten a divorce, and would have never been on Ambien (hopefully). Also another sister would never have felt the need to leave Utah, live the life of a traveling partying rebel, and not had a family of her own - because of her apparent distaste for the stuffiness of ultra-conservative Mormonism. Salt Lake has become much more liberal while she was away though. But one key thing to keep in mind is that religion can and does divide families, keep them apart, and destroy lives in the process. Unless you're educated about what the facts really are, you have no idea.
There can be some good that comes from religion, and religion is a natural phenomena. So it is a mixed bag, with good and bad, extreme damage and some good happening simultaneously. The more honest a religion can be the better though - the ones that allow their members to be intellectually and emotionally honest while still being a member. The more conservative a religion is the less this tends to be allowed though.
One additional key issue is that Cindy acts like she is a family member, a sister, and she takes liberties assuming she is, liberties revolving around making snide and derogatory and cutting remarks when other "family members" (according to her small brain) act in a way which she doesn't like.
In December of 2010 I dumped Cindy from my facebook friend list. During that holiday season I decided to have less contact with other people because of some epiphany work I was going through. She became angry at this and made a cutting remark then. Then I dropped her from my facebook friend list.
Subsequently I heard that she had stolen money from my father (hearing this from him), and that she was continuing to ask for money on a frequent basis from him.
My sister who went on a Mormon mission to Ohio has had a problem with Ambien. She also used to live the life of a rich woman, spending her days in the fluffy dream world of someone who need only concern herself with clothes, shoes, horse riding & training, spas, facials, and so on. Then her now ex-husband went bankrupt and she divorced him. Then she went straight onto Ambien. And Cindy was there during the Ambien years, acting as a bad influence, and apparently helping my sister get even more Ambien.
You know how some pretty women have tag along less pretty friends? Well, Cindy is the much less pretty one, and she's also been a bad influence - especially during the high Ambien fuelded druggie days of my sister.
My sister is in recovery from Ambien, and her brain is slowly coming back. But there's still division in our family revolving around her own past addiction and choice to use that terrible drug. But I think that division is also connected to Mormonism.
So now we come again to the wedding of another sister of mine. This Cindy woman was invited to another sisters wedding, because this other sister lives far away and is fairly disconnected from what's happening with the family back in Utah - by her own choice. But because she's disconnected she doesn't know that it's not really possible to just assume things are a certain way when they are not.
From the first entrance of myself & my wife into the wedding room Cindy demanded to know why I dumped her as a Facebook friend in December of 2010. I told her I didn't want to talk about it. Later she asked if she could take a picture of myself, my wife, and our new son, because she claimed she was doing this as a favor to my sister who was getting married. I told her "no thank you." Then she said "your loss."
As I was preparing to leave with my new family I walked over to Cindy and told her "stay the fuck away from me - you are not part of our family." She responded "how rude." But this woman has spent her life making rude and cutting remarks to other people.
My Ambien-damaged sister should realize that when people were upset that she was destroying her life with her use of that terrible drug, that we were trying to do her and everyone a favor.
In Utah there's a lot of women on anti-depressants. Why? Because Mormonism drives them fucking crazy. So perhaps it's understandable why one of my sisters went down that path. But, on the other hand, I have no obligation to treat as a sister a friend of hers who tries the take the liberty of assuming she's a sister of mine. And, I also am not particularly pleased at the turmoil Ambien, and indirectly & directly Mormonism, has played a roll in dividing my family and keeping us apart. Also if it weren't for Mormonism, this retarded fat ugly rude tag along woman named Cindy would have never come to Utah, as a moocher and tag along little puppy friend to my Amdien-damaged sister.
Now, as my own father has dementia, and as our family drifts apart, at the very least I have my own new family.
When you see how fucked up your own older family can become, at the very least you can determine to try to do something different with your own. And one important thing to recognize is that passive aggression is still aggression. Mormon people are famous for this. They say they love you and want to care for you. But they also believe your views of the world are evil. So in the end they really aren't nice people.
People who believe you're going to hell (or in their case, not to the highest level of heaven) because you don't kiss the ass of their god & prophet aren't nice people, no matter how many batches of cookies they may also bring to your door in the mean time. It's a means to an end for them.
And, if it weren't for Mormonism, my sister would probably have never gotten a divorce, and would have never been on Ambien (hopefully). Also another sister would never have felt the need to leave Utah, live the life of a traveling partying rebel, and not had a family of her own - because of her apparent distaste for the stuffiness of ultra-conservative Mormonism. Salt Lake has become much more liberal while she was away though. But one key thing to keep in mind is that religion can and does divide families, keep them apart, and destroy lives in the process. Unless you're educated about what the facts really are, you have no idea.
There can be some good that comes from religion, and religion is a natural phenomena. So it is a mixed bag, with good and bad, extreme damage and some good happening simultaneously. The more honest a religion can be the better though - the ones that allow their members to be intellectually and emotionally honest while still being a member. The more conservative a religion is the less this tends to be allowed though.
Friday, September 21, 2012
"The left" and Islamic fundamentalism
Speaking as a left-leaning anti-authoritarian myself:
What is up with the left wing in America?
I think the Iraq war made them very upset, very upset indeed. So much so that they are now engaging in several logical fallacies and conflationary actions themselves - primarily in response to their own hatred for the right, their hatred for people like George W. Bush and so on.
But, one thing the left wing lacks is experience with what it's like to live in a real religion. They have no idea what it's like. Their primarily experience with religion is light and fluffy. So, they have no concept of what it's like to be a woman or a man living in a sexually repressed culture - in other words what it's like to live in an Islamic country.
Remember George Galloway?
Here's a debate between him & Hitchens:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6804714963382152969
Galloway is a buddy of Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now(?):
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/1/canadian_judge_upholds_government_decision_to
Remember Iran, where they kill people for all sorts of otherwise trivial reasons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Iran
Do you know Galloway works for Iran's Press TV?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySTJLeMN4M0
What's up with the connection between the "left" and Islamic fundamentalism? Galloway's own actions by working for Press TV shows they are now the same thing.
I don't want to be a tool of the left or the right. Not of Israel nor of Palestine.
Dictators should be opposed & defeated. All of them, everywhere.
Freedom of speech should resign supreme, as should the right to offend cultish religions & their brain washed followers.
People who live in cultural prisons should be freed.
Offensive speech should never be banned. Rather, it should simply be responded to with other speech.
Just because the right to say certain things in certain countries has been and is being abridged, that doesn't make it right. Living together as a community doesn't mean forced silence. That's no solution for anything. It just causes feelings to be suppressed - to simmer until they boil over. Let everyone speak. Let there be a crucible. That's what true democracy is all about. That's what science is about. And only then can everyone truly figure out what is right & what is wrong, and separate fact from fiction.
Do we have "democracy now?" Can we have "democracy now?" We could well ask Amy Goodman and her buddy George Galloway. But can we have true democracy within Islamic sharia, where even the supposed moderates cry for censorship of cartoons and films? No.
Sadly, and unfortunately, the ultra left now IS the same thing as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic sharia. This happened due to anger, ignorance, and stupidity. What's the solution? Freedom of speech & education. Left originated censorship and self hatred is just as unappealing as right originated censorship and self hatred.
------------
Oh, and p.s., a reading of the posts on the following page indicates that Pakistan is a prison. And so is Iran.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/anti-islam-film-protests-10701
Before September 11, 2001 I never thought much about the Muslim world. But the prison they live in made them so upset, some of their representatives lashed out in anger & violence on that day. Bush may have overreacted with Iraq, but not with Afghanistan. Anyway...
What is up with the left wing in America?
I think the Iraq war made them very upset, very upset indeed. So much so that they are now engaging in several logical fallacies and conflationary actions themselves - primarily in response to their own hatred for the right, their hatred for people like George W. Bush and so on.
But, one thing the left wing lacks is experience with what it's like to live in a real religion. They have no idea what it's like. Their primarily experience with religion is light and fluffy. So, they have no concept of what it's like to be a woman or a man living in a sexually repressed culture - in other words what it's like to live in an Islamic country.
Remember George Galloway?
Here's a debate between him & Hitchens:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6804714963382152969
Galloway is a buddy of Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now(?):
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/1/canadian_judge_upholds_government_decision_to
Remember Iran, where they kill people for all sorts of otherwise trivial reasons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Iran
Do you know Galloway works for Iran's Press TV?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySTJLeMN4M0
What's up with the connection between the "left" and Islamic fundamentalism? Galloway's own actions by working for Press TV shows they are now the same thing.
I don't want to be a tool of the left or the right. Not of Israel nor of Palestine.
Dictators should be opposed & defeated. All of them, everywhere.
Freedom of speech should resign supreme, as should the right to offend cultish religions & their brain washed followers.
People who live in cultural prisons should be freed.
Offensive speech should never be banned. Rather, it should simply be responded to with other speech.
Just because the right to say certain things in certain countries has been and is being abridged, that doesn't make it right. Living together as a community doesn't mean forced silence. That's no solution for anything. It just causes feelings to be suppressed - to simmer until they boil over. Let everyone speak. Let there be a crucible. That's what true democracy is all about. That's what science is about. And only then can everyone truly figure out what is right & what is wrong, and separate fact from fiction.
Do we have "democracy now?" Can we have "democracy now?" We could well ask Amy Goodman and her buddy George Galloway. But can we have true democracy within Islamic sharia, where even the supposed moderates cry for censorship of cartoons and films? No.
Sadly, and unfortunately, the ultra left now IS the same thing as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic sharia. This happened due to anger, ignorance, and stupidity. What's the solution? Freedom of speech & education. Left originated censorship and self hatred is just as unappealing as right originated censorship and self hatred.
------------
Oh, and p.s., a reading of the posts on the following page indicates that Pakistan is a prison. And so is Iran.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/anti-islam-film-protests-10701
Before September 11, 2001 I never thought much about the Muslim world. But the prison they live in made them so upset, some of their representatives lashed out in anger & violence on that day. Bush may have overreacted with Iraq, but not with Afghanistan. Anyway...
Films, Cartoons, and Mohamed: Islam is a cult - just older and larger
A film comes out. Then some cartoons. Vociferous people demand censorship. Other people don't want "oil thrown on a fire."
Listen to recent BBC programs on the issue.
Read the comments on Charlie Hebdo's blog.
Let the comments from everyone wash over you. I did, and here's what I've come to conclude:
Islam is a wacky abusive cult, just like any other cult. What's the difference between Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology? Time, and the level of violence advocated by and allowed for by the core doctrines. Even regular Christianity, in it's many flavors, has cultish aspects depending on which church or denomination we're talking about.
Listen to what Islamic believers say about Mohamed. They love him more than they love life, more than their family, and so on.
Any criticism against Mohamed is taken so personally that the believers advocate censorship at the very least, and violence more commonly. With the recent debate over the film Innocence of Muslims, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, I constantly heard talk of "red lines." "You've crossed my red line" this, and "don't cross my red line" that.
When you cross a person's so-called "red line" what happens? What'ja gonna do? Complain? Sue me? Hit me? Kill me? Talk of "red lines" are threats. And threats for what? Regarding complaining about whom? A 6th century war mongering pedophile?
Have you ever heard of the wives of Joseph Smith? How about Brigham Young?
Why do cult leaders get to have so many wives? Charismatic charlatans really enjoy sex - with other men's wives, and with underage girls. 15, 14, 9? WTF! God gave you a message to do what? FOAD - that is the appropriate response to such people. But, you can always tell cult leaders by their actions.
They say: God gave me a message.
Reply: A message to do what?
They say: To fuck your wife and your daughter.
Reply: What if I say no?
They say: God will send you to hell... and, maybe I'll have my friends lean on you, or kill you.
They say: I am God's messenger. To deny my words is to deny the word of God.
Joseph fucking Smith, Brigham fucking Young, David fucking Koresh, L. Ron fucking Hubbard. And fucking Mohamed, peace be upon him - all the same deranged controlling fucks who want to use lies, violence, and damaging virulent meme sets to control others.
So yes, the only differences between Mormonism and Islam are this: Time, and the level of violence allowed by core doctrines.
I am an ex-Mormon. Thank god I wasn't a Muslim. But if I were, I hope that I'd have the balls to stand up to the cult members & their leaders.
People who have had no experience with real religion have no fucking idea what they're talking about when they use such phrases as "don't provoke," or "oil on flames," and so on.
It's our duty to provoke, to cajole, to help people oppressed by mind controlling cults fucking O-U-T of their religions. And to help force their religions to be more civilized. Christians were forced to have a sense of humor, by two world wars, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Islam never had either on a permanent basis. Like it or not, we're helping them have theirs now. B grade film makers are helping, as are naughty, brash, and brave French satirical magazines.
In a civil society, cartoons & films are N-O-T banned, even if they offend your cult-originated deranged sensibilities about "your prophet." And in civil societies, you don't get to censor or threaten with violence me or anyone over a cartoon or film.
Many people in Islamic countries are unhappy because they are in Islamic countries being oppressed. Their hatred and anger is derived from their status. So, when the "oil" of films or cartoons are poured upon their hatred, they become angy - becuase they are currently in a prison.
BUT, the one thing secular people who want to censor films & cartoons & art critical of Islam don't realize is that art & speech critical of Islam will help to free these people. The volume needs to be turned up as loudly as possible, not turned down.
Related views:
By Sam Harris. And a previous extended interview where Harris talks about cult leaders.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
By Pat Condell.
Additional copies of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042554-20120919-100853.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042543-20120919-100843.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042534-20120919-100905.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042594-20120919-101202.jpg
Copies of a related posts I've put up elsewhere:
--------------------- 1
Oh, no! More cartoons are coming! More drawings on paper! Run. Hide. Or, if you're an Islamist, go on a murderous rampage.
The volume should be turned up. We have, with the protests, the personification of a spoiled brat child. What if, by comparison, Rome threatened the Monty Python troupe with death for their film Life of Brian? What would be the "appropriate response" from that group & related artists? MORE OF THE SAME, and higher quality parodies as well. In the instance of the film we have a poor quality parody. We need higher quality parodies. Maybe that's REALLY why the Muslims are upset. A B movie is a B movie. We all want higher quality production values in our art.
Sam Harris on the issue:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god
BBC World Have Your Say programs on the cartoons:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1912a.mp3
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1423a.mp3
[the above links will only be available for a few days, but here's an archive for you]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnARvLa3Pd8
A parody of my own about Joseph Smith & his church. Should I be killed for this by Mormons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERKfXjG-7Xc Should my parody be banned? Damn, I'm glad I wasn't a f-in Muslim, but if I had been I hope I'd have enough balls to stand up to people still being repressed by the cult & their leaders.
--------------------- 2
Crazy repressed nuts kill a guy over a B film...
Part of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
The killers of the U.S. ambassador to Libya have by their actions moved this otherwise low grade laughable B movie into a very important status, and in my view it goes to show that more higher quality and more accurate films (and campy and crapily made films) need to be made.
We need a Monty Python style Life of Brian type film about Mohammed. Christians, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and two world wars, have been forced to have a sense of humor about their religion. Muslims need to have a sense of humor about their religion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_brian
--------------------- ps
The film Sumission Part 1, that Theo Van Gogh was killed over and why Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with constant security. Sam Harris has to have security guards travel with him. The Charlie Hebdo artists have to have this also. Having to live your life with security guards always around does tend to sharpen your mind about things, and your views about what really is important to say - and about the value of free speech, calling a spade a spade, honesty, and stating when the emperor has no clothes.
--------------------- ps2
Also, regarding certain libertarian ultra right wing nutjobs who claim that Palestine doesn't exist, I don't support them either, nor do I wish to be drawn into blind support for whatever Israel wants to do. People do have a right to live on their own land and to be left alone. But people also have a right not to be suicide bombed. So there's trouble on both sides there. But one key bottom line is that freedom of speech must not be abridged.
The "moderate" Muslims want censorship. They want their sharia also. That's not moderate though. We need freedom of speech. For the critics, for the cartoonists, for the sane people, and for the nutjobs. Everyone. Censorship is not an option. That's our red line.
Listen to recent BBC programs on the issue.
Read the comments on Charlie Hebdo's blog.
Let the comments from everyone wash over you. I did, and here's what I've come to conclude:
Islam is a wacky abusive cult, just like any other cult. What's the difference between Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology? Time, and the level of violence advocated by and allowed for by the core doctrines. Even regular Christianity, in it's many flavors, has cultish aspects depending on which church or denomination we're talking about.
Listen to what Islamic believers say about Mohamed. They love him more than they love life, more than their family, and so on.
Any criticism against Mohamed is taken so personally that the believers advocate censorship at the very least, and violence more commonly. With the recent debate over the film Innocence of Muslims, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, I constantly heard talk of "red lines." "You've crossed my red line" this, and "don't cross my red line" that.
When you cross a person's so-called "red line" what happens? What'ja gonna do? Complain? Sue me? Hit me? Kill me? Talk of "red lines" are threats. And threats for what? Regarding complaining about whom? A 6th century war mongering pedophile?
Have you ever heard of the wives of Joseph Smith? How about Brigham Young?
Why do cult leaders get to have so many wives? Charismatic charlatans really enjoy sex - with other men's wives, and with underage girls. 15, 14, 9? WTF! God gave you a message to do what? FOAD - that is the appropriate response to such people. But, you can always tell cult leaders by their actions.
They say: God gave me a message.
Reply: A message to do what?
They say: To fuck your wife and your daughter.
Reply: What if I say no?
They say: God will send you to hell... and, maybe I'll have my friends lean on you, or kill you.
They say: I am God's messenger. To deny my words is to deny the word of God.
Joseph fucking Smith, Brigham fucking Young, David fucking Koresh, L. Ron fucking Hubbard. And fucking Mohamed, peace be upon him - all the same deranged controlling fucks who want to use lies, violence, and damaging virulent meme sets to control others.
So yes, the only differences between Mormonism and Islam are this: Time, and the level of violence allowed by core doctrines.
I am an ex-Mormon. Thank god I wasn't a Muslim. But if I were, I hope that I'd have the balls to stand up to the cult members & their leaders.
People who have had no experience with real religion have no fucking idea what they're talking about when they use such phrases as "don't provoke," or "oil on flames," and so on.
It's our duty to provoke, to cajole, to help people oppressed by mind controlling cults fucking O-U-T of their religions. And to help force their religions to be more civilized. Christians were forced to have a sense of humor, by two world wars, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Islam never had either on a permanent basis. Like it or not, we're helping them have theirs now. B grade film makers are helping, as are naughty, brash, and brave French satirical magazines.
In a civil society, cartoons & films are N-O-T banned, even if they offend your cult-originated deranged sensibilities about "your prophet." And in civil societies, you don't get to censor or threaten with violence me or anyone over a cartoon or film.
Many people in Islamic countries are unhappy because they are in Islamic countries being oppressed. Their hatred and anger is derived from their status. So, when the "oil" of films or cartoons are poured upon their hatred, they become angy - becuase they are currently in a prison.
BUT, the one thing secular people who want to censor films & cartoons & art critical of Islam don't realize is that art & speech critical of Islam will help to free these people. The volume needs to be turned up as loudly as possible, not turned down.
Related views:
By Sam Harris. And a previous extended interview where Harris talks about cult leaders.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
By Pat Condell.
Additional copies of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042554-20120919-100853.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042543-20120919-100843.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042534-20120919-100905.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042594-20120919-101202.jpg
Copies of a related posts I've put up elsewhere:
--------------------- 1
Oh, no! More cartoons are coming! More drawings on paper! Run. Hide. Or, if you're an Islamist, go on a murderous rampage.
The volume should be turned up. We have, with the protests, the personification of a spoiled brat child. What if, by comparison, Rome threatened the Monty Python troupe with death for their film Life of Brian? What would be the "appropriate response" from that group & related artists? MORE OF THE SAME, and higher quality parodies as well. In the instance of the film we have a poor quality parody. We need higher quality parodies. Maybe that's REALLY why the Muslims are upset. A B movie is a B movie. We all want higher quality production values in our art.
Sam Harris on the issue:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god
BBC World Have Your Say programs on the cartoons:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1912a.mp3
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1423a.mp3
[the above links will only be available for a few days, but here's an archive for you]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnARvLa3Pd8
A parody of my own about Joseph Smith & his church. Should I be killed for this by Mormons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERKfXjG-7Xc Should my parody be banned? Damn, I'm glad I wasn't a f-in Muslim, but if I had been I hope I'd have enough balls to stand up to people still being repressed by the cult & their leaders.
--------------------- 2
Crazy repressed nuts kill a guy over a B film...
Part of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
The killers of the U.S. ambassador to Libya have by their actions moved this otherwise low grade laughable B movie into a very important status, and in my view it goes to show that more higher quality and more accurate films (and campy and crapily made films) need to be made.
We need a Monty Python style Life of Brian type film about Mohammed. Christians, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and two world wars, have been forced to have a sense of humor about their religion. Muslims need to have a sense of humor about their religion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_brian
--------------------- ps
The film Sumission Part 1, that Theo Van Gogh was killed over and why Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with constant security. Sam Harris has to have security guards travel with him. The Charlie Hebdo artists have to have this also. Having to live your life with security guards always around does tend to sharpen your mind about things, and your views about what really is important to say - and about the value of free speech, calling a spade a spade, honesty, and stating when the emperor has no clothes.
--------------------- ps2
Also, regarding certain libertarian ultra right wing nutjobs who claim that Palestine doesn't exist, I don't support them either, nor do I wish to be drawn into blind support for whatever Israel wants to do. People do have a right to live on their own land and to be left alone. But people also have a right not to be suicide bombed. So there's trouble on both sides there. But one key bottom line is that freedom of speech must not be abridged.
The "moderate" Muslims want censorship. They want their sharia also. That's not moderate though. We need freedom of speech. For the critics, for the cartoonists, for the sane people, and for the nutjobs. Everyone. Censorship is not an option. That's our red line.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
KKK type people now in the Republican Camp
In response to a darker skinned news camerawoman human having nuts thrown at her at the recent Repiglican convention.
In the past the KKK hung out at the Democratic Party conventions. Now their in-spirit-if-not-in-fact supporters go to the Republican ones. This is what has happened when the American southern Democrats largely switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party.
Also for the Repigs, holding their convention in Tampa probably did allow for more southern-style racists to show up.
Everyone's a bit racist, and we are all animals, but we're also all human.
In the past the KKK hung out at the Democratic Party conventions. Now their in-spirit-if-not-in-fact supporters go to the Republican ones. This is what has happened when the American southern Democrats largely switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party.
Also for the Repigs, holding their convention in Tampa probably did allow for more southern-style racists to show up.
Everyone's a bit racist, and we are all animals, but we're also all human.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Pot & tobacco: smoke is smoke, and brain altering chemicals are brain altering chemicals
In response to the BBC story "Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims:"
Inhaling smoke into your lungs isn't particularly healthy, nor is the constant intake of chemicals that alter your brain chemistry. If you have a real reason for having to take it, for example if you are HIV positive or on chemo and have no other alternative to avoid feeling nauseous. Otherwise the stuff can easily make you into a retard. And the hippie political correct "there's no harm" line on this front is bull... Brain altering chemicals are brain altering chemicals, and smoke is smoke. Tobacco also alters your brain.
Inhaling smoke into your lungs isn't particularly healthy, nor is the constant intake of chemicals that alter your brain chemistry. If you have a real reason for having to take it, for example if you are HIV positive or on chemo and have no other alternative to avoid feeling nauseous. Otherwise the stuff can easily make you into a retard. And the hippie political correct "there's no harm" line on this front is bull... Brain altering chemicals are brain altering chemicals, and smoke is smoke. Tobacco also alters your brain.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
12 Step Programs: Not exactly bullshit, more of a social support solution
Penn & Teller on 12 step programs. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle - not that a middle solution is always the answer. "Free will" doesn't exist in the classic sense as per Sam Harris. AA is a religious organization. The main benefit people gain from AA is social support. Not a god. Not surrendering to a supposed higher power. Social support - and that's all. There is value to social support.
So I don't agree with every "behavior" is a free choice. So libertarians Penn & Teller and the people they had on their program are quite wrong on that point. But on the other hand admitting that we have no power at all and that all of our choices are in the hands of some god is a bogus concept also.
The only god worth worshiping is sex. And in my case that form of worship has resulted in at least one pregnancy so far.
--------------------
Related posts to god worship:
Mortal Mormonism - history & current views:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal-Mormonism-November-26-2005.pdf
Left and right fuzzy thinking subverts science - and now has converged on one “progressive” site:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/8246/
So I don't agree with every "behavior" is a free choice. So libertarians Penn & Teller and the people they had on their program are quite wrong on that point. But on the other hand admitting that we have no power at all and that all of our choices are in the hands of some god is a bogus concept also.
The only god worth worshiping is sex. And in my case that form of worship has resulted in at least one pregnancy so far.
--------------------
Related posts to god worship:
Mortal Mormonism - history & current views:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal-Mormonism-November-26-2005.pdf
Left and right fuzzy thinking subverts science - and now has converged on one “progressive” site:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/8246/
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Sam Harris responds to a-hole trolls like PZ Myers
Sam Harris responds to his critics & a-hole trolls like PZ Myers...
"...My correspondent is right about one thing, however: It was all there in my first book, The End of Faith. Since the moment I began criticizing religion in public, I have argued that Islam merits special concern—because it is currently the most militant and retrograde of the world’s major religions. This has always made certain people uncomfortable, because they find it difficult to distinguish a focus on Islam—specifically, on the real-world effects of its doctrines regarding martyrdom, jihad, apostasy, and the status of women—from bigotry against Muslims. But the difference is clear and crucial. My criticism of conservative Islam has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or nationality. And, as I have often said, no one suffers the consequences of this pernicious ideology—the abridgments of political and intellectual freedom, the mistreatment of women, the fanaticism and sectarian murder—more than innocent Muslims..."
as from http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/wrestling-the-troll
Related posts here:
Sam Harris, Scott Atran, banning Islam, racism, and apology for abusive religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/sam-harris-scott-atran-banning-islam.html
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists" http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html
Two videos found on feminism - challenging politically correct dogma
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/two-videos-found-on-feminism.html
Atheist conferences and sexual harassment rules
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheist-conferences-and-sexual.html
Thunderf00t vs P.Z. Myers: I vote for thunderf00t
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html
I think the main mistake made by recent atheist conference organizers by inviting an unhinged stinky troll like PZ Myers into their and our midst. Some people have class. Myers has an bung hole for a mouth and a rotten pea for a brain.
"...My correspondent is right about one thing, however: It was all there in my first book, The End of Faith. Since the moment I began criticizing religion in public, I have argued that Islam merits special concern—because it is currently the most militant and retrograde of the world’s major religions. This has always made certain people uncomfortable, because they find it difficult to distinguish a focus on Islam—specifically, on the real-world effects of its doctrines regarding martyrdom, jihad, apostasy, and the status of women—from bigotry against Muslims. But the difference is clear and crucial. My criticism of conservative Islam has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or nationality. And, as I have often said, no one suffers the consequences of this pernicious ideology—the abridgments of political and intellectual freedom, the mistreatment of women, the fanaticism and sectarian murder—more than innocent Muslims..."
as from http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/wrestling-the-troll
Related posts here:
Sam Harris, Scott Atran, banning Islam, racism, and apology for abusive religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/sam-harris-scott-atran-banning-islam.html
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists" http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html
Two videos found on feminism - challenging politically correct dogma
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/two-videos-found-on-feminism.html
Atheist conferences and sexual harassment rules
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheist-conferences-and-sexual.html
Thunderf00t vs P.Z. Myers: I vote for thunderf00t
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html
I think the main mistake made by recent atheist conference organizers by inviting an unhinged stinky troll like PZ Myers into their and our midst. Some people have class. Myers has an bung hole for a mouth and a rotten pea for a brain.
Romney picks which right wing asshole to be his running mate? Paul Ryan: fucking social Darwinist Cheesehead...
Mitt Romney picks Raul Ryan as his running mate. Paul Ryan is a fucking social Darwinist Cheesehead. Romney has reached into the nut bag that all repiglican presidential candidates must now reach into and this time he's found some stinky Limberger.
Related views from others:
"Mittens is gonna announce this pompous ASSHOLE as his running."
Related views from others:
"Mittens is gonna announce this pompous ASSHOLE as his running."
Friday, August 10, 2012
End-result links between White Supremacy and Islam
In response to "American Atheists Expresses Condolences for Sikh Community Following Shooting:"
Unfortunately there are psychopaths in the world, and people who become so unhappy and deranged that they hurt innocent people. Is "white supremacist" an accurate term for the guy who did this? Perhaps a more accurate term would be "angry deranged mentally damaged f-ed up guy who should be locked away forever."
Xenophobia may be a natural and prevalent human trait, but most people aren't mass murders either. Since we don't yet have good tools for genetic intervention (or the morality to use such tools yet), in human society there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who have damaged brains. And the crazy fearful talk in the white supremacist type community and other angry crazy talk can lead the small percentage of deranged people to do evil things to innocent people.
No color of humans are "supreme" of course. And ways need to be found to pick out and weed and intervene with the deranged angry people who have the propensity to engage in physical violence against innocent people.
My own view of the Sikh's were that they tended to be gentle people with a more gentle religion than some. No one deserves to be killed for their views of course. Not atheists. Not Sikhs. No one. But in this case the violence came about mainly because some shy demented F was under a rock and the only way he could escape was to lash out in a crazy way. Some guy who couldn't get a life, other than associating with other losers. So lock away the guy and throw the away the key... Keep the dangerous animals away from the rest of us. That's what zoos and prisons are for.
A civil society allows for vociferous debate. The killing of others by people who've either tied themselves into Nazi-style hate, or who've tied themsleves to a religion that advocates killing the non-believer - all religion-originated-hate that would kill people for drawing cartoons, needs to be punished equally.
Living in fear is not an option we should choose. May the Sikhs not be afraid because of the acts of an angry looser who glommed onto Nazi-style-hate because he couldn't get a life. And, may liberals, ex-Muslims, atheists, and skeptics not be afraid or silenced by fear over offending homocidal Islamists who kill over otherwise trivial things like cartoon drawing.
Maybe "white supremecy" and conservative Islam share key traits - both appear to want to kill others for their beliefs and for criticism of their positions.
As for America: There's F-ed up people here also. If someone is F-ed up to kill others we lock them up. Some countries don't do this, and some countries have institutions which engage in systematic killing of those who oppose the government or who oppose religion. So we're lucky here in that at least we have freedom of speech guaranteed by law. That freedom even extends to allowing supremacists to speak their mind, even if they're wrong. But I agree that perhaps more infiltration & monitoring of such groups needs to be done to look for people who would be mass killers. And maybe we do need more gun control in America.
At my work there's some country bumpkins who sit near me who enjoy gun use for recreational purposes (shooting practice & hunting). In the aftermath of the recent shootings it was strange and creepy to hear these idiots talk about how if more people had guns that would solve the problem. However since a certain percentage of humans will always be deranged and damaged, maybe having less access to the tools of death would help reduce the incidence of mass murder. When the crazies can't get guns as easily then there will be less killing. And there will always be crazies, unless more genetic intervention can be done to help ensure that such people aren't ever born in the first place.
Unfortunately there are psychopaths in the world, and people who become so unhappy and deranged that they hurt innocent people. Is "white supremacist" an accurate term for the guy who did this? Perhaps a more accurate term would be "angry deranged mentally damaged f-ed up guy who should be locked away forever."
Xenophobia may be a natural and prevalent human trait, but most people aren't mass murders either. Since we don't yet have good tools for genetic intervention (or the morality to use such tools yet), in human society there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who have damaged brains. And the crazy fearful talk in the white supremacist type community and other angry crazy talk can lead the small percentage of deranged people to do evil things to innocent people.
No color of humans are "supreme" of course. And ways need to be found to pick out and weed and intervene with the deranged angry people who have the propensity to engage in physical violence against innocent people.
My own view of the Sikh's were that they tended to be gentle people with a more gentle religion than some. No one deserves to be killed for their views of course. Not atheists. Not Sikhs. No one. But in this case the violence came about mainly because some shy demented F was under a rock and the only way he could escape was to lash out in a crazy way. Some guy who couldn't get a life, other than associating with other losers. So lock away the guy and throw the away the key... Keep the dangerous animals away from the rest of us. That's what zoos and prisons are for.
A civil society allows for vociferous debate. The killing of others by people who've either tied themselves into Nazi-style hate, or who've tied themsleves to a religion that advocates killing the non-believer - all religion-originated-hate that would kill people for drawing cartoons, needs to be punished equally.
Living in fear is not an option we should choose. May the Sikhs not be afraid because of the acts of an angry looser who glommed onto Nazi-style-hate because he couldn't get a life. And, may liberals, ex-Muslims, atheists, and skeptics not be afraid or silenced by fear over offending homocidal Islamists who kill over otherwise trivial things like cartoon drawing.
Maybe "white supremecy" and conservative Islam share key traits - both appear to want to kill others for their beliefs and for criticism of their positions.
As for America: There's F-ed up people here also. If someone is F-ed up to kill others we lock them up. Some countries don't do this, and some countries have institutions which engage in systematic killing of those who oppose the government or who oppose religion. So we're lucky here in that at least we have freedom of speech guaranteed by law. That freedom even extends to allowing supremacists to speak their mind, even if they're wrong. But I agree that perhaps more infiltration & monitoring of such groups needs to be done to look for people who would be mass killers. And maybe we do need more gun control in America.
At my work there's some country bumpkins who sit near me who enjoy gun use for recreational purposes (shooting practice & hunting). In the aftermath of the recent shootings it was strange and creepy to hear these idiots talk about how if more people had guns that would solve the problem. However since a certain percentage of humans will always be deranged and damaged, maybe having less access to the tools of death would help reduce the incidence of mass murder. When the crazies can't get guns as easily then there will be less killing. And there will always be crazies, unless more genetic intervention can be done to help ensure that such people aren't ever born in the first place.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Islam is not a race, not an ethnicity - Salt Lake American Muslim SLAAM
Islam is not a race and not an ethnicity - response to a page by the group Salt Lake American Muslim:
The page at http://www.saltlakeamericanmuslim.com/#!our-story has the following statement:
Religion is not a race, not an ethnicity.
Becoming an American does not mean forcing your children & women to wear tight bags or scarfs covering most of their heads, and cloth that drapes all the way down to their feet.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion, a "meme set," and as with any set of memes it should be subject to the same set of criticisms that any meme set can be subject to. Criticism. Debate. Openness. Honesty. It's not too much to ask?
The sins of Bush should not be apologized for by dishonesty. All conservative religions have inherent lies at their heart. The group Salt Lake American Muslim (SLAAM) is very concerned about what happened with past immigrants to the US. That's nice. But here's a key message: Just stop abusing your children, that's all.
To the Jews: stop mutilating the genitals of your children.
To the Muslims: Ditto, with the added comment that you should also stop requiring your women and girls to wear cloth bags or tight scarfs.
Does your cultural diversity extend to allowing for skeptics and for atheists in your group? How about ex-Muslims? Are these types of people welcome in your "community?"
What is the response of your group to the following video from the Center for Inquiry, about how conservative Islam leads to breeding suicide bombers?
The page at http://www.saltlakeamericanmuslim.com/#!our-story has the following statement:
"In an effort to curb current tension experienced between Muslims and non-Muslims globally, which is similar to that faced historically by Native Americans, Irish Americans, Jewish Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Hispanic Americans and now Muslim Americans - Salt Lake American Muslim undertakes multicultural activities such as our festival A Celebration of Cultural Diversity to generate mutual understanding and goodwill not only between Muslims and non-Muslims but among all ethnic communities that reside in Salt Lake County through sharing of the very best ethnic cultural artistic expression as part of the American acculturation process."Response:
Religion is not a race, not an ethnicity.
Becoming an American does not mean forcing your children & women to wear tight bags or scarfs covering most of their heads, and cloth that drapes all the way down to their feet.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion, a "meme set," and as with any set of memes it should be subject to the same set of criticisms that any meme set can be subject to. Criticism. Debate. Openness. Honesty. It's not too much to ask?
The sins of Bush should not be apologized for by dishonesty. All conservative religions have inherent lies at their heart. The group Salt Lake American Muslim (SLAAM) is very concerned about what happened with past immigrants to the US. That's nice. But here's a key message: Just stop abusing your children, that's all.
To the Jews: stop mutilating the genitals of your children.
To the Muslims: Ditto, with the added comment that you should also stop requiring your women and girls to wear cloth bags or tight scarfs.
Does your cultural diversity extend to allowing for skeptics and for atheists in your group? How about ex-Muslims? Are these types of people welcome in your "community?"
What is the response of your group to the following video from the Center for Inquiry, about how conservative Islam leads to breeding suicide bombers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuAWelcome to America though, where freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and thankfully freedom from religion are supposed to be guaranteed by law. I'm not responsible for the sins of Bush or for what happened in Iraq. I'm also not responsible for the sins of Sadam, or the past sins of the CIA and so on. I'm primarily interested in honesty. Most religions aren't interested in this. Honesty cuts into the preacher's & the Imam's pay, so of course they hate it.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Thoughts on hyphenated Americans, racism, and cynicism
Is it dogmatic to question dogma? Only if atheism is somehow equivalent to a conservative religion.
Yes, we could be crass cynics like Matt Stone & Trey Parker are, and spew forth flatulence which while briefly humorous becomes quickly sick and putrid.
People of a certain color can't jump. People from another culture tend to have trashy back yards and are not noted for high quality craftsmanship. People from another culture get very angry indeed at cartoons or other humor revolving around past historic and non-historic figures.
Everyone's a bit racist. The hyphenated language that permeates forums such as NPR is key evidence of this. Frankly, I don't care if you're a hyphenated American this or that. Get on with life and do something useful, other than obsess about which hyphenated phrase you can associate with yourself and others.
Is such a request cynical dogma? A dogmatist is unwilling to question his own suppositions. People on the right and left perfectly fit into the same box in this regard. The main thing I question about hyphenated Americans is that their labels take too much of my verbal time to state the self-assigned labels. And the second thing I question is that maybe the hyphenated phrases people assign to themselves & others aren't really all that accurate.
For example:
Who is a Native American? Anyone born in America. That is the traditional definition of the word "native."
Who is an African American? All humans in America, because we all came out of Africa.
And what was adding a religion to the hyphenation?
Muslim American
Mormonism American
Catholic American
Scientologist American
Idiot American
What a waste of time and language to merge these words together.
Who are your ancestors? It's ok to use labels to describe your ancestry. But adding the word "American" to your label is a lame, time wasting, pompous, and superfluous.
Friday, August 3, 2012
That Shitty Chicken Place: I never eat there anyway
I never eat at the chicken place currently being mentioned in the news, and haven't done so since maybe one time about 15 or 20 years ago when Crossroads Mall was still open. Should gay people get married? I don't think the law should ban adults from doing what they please with other adults. I'm still in favor of questioning all suppositions and dogmas, left and right alike. So I'm willing to listen to all sides. But I don't think the force of law should be used to keep people from doing what they please with other adults.
However I do think that the crucible of debate should be used to shine a light on all dogma, left and right alike. For example here's one guy with enough balls to do this:
http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1578785
Ad hominem attacks and conversation killers like "racist," "bigot," and "misogynist" don't help further the conversation. It goes without saying that the COO of the "shitty-chicken-place-that-I-never-go-to-anyway" could rightly be described as a bigot. But all this fervor makes me think we should also take a step back and examine >why< people think the way they do. There may be naturalistic explanations to why people respond the way they do to things. Religion is after all a natural phenomenon, like it or not. Maybe what people really object to is who's making a contribution to moving humanity forward? Are you doing it? Am I?
Is it difficult but still possible to listen to both sides in a vociferous debate and to take a step back from both sides and do a more thorough evaluation. Do we have the balls to ask hard questions of both sides?
In any case, let's all try to be less selfish. Think about legacy. And let the people who like the shitty chicken place go there if they want. I never go there anyway.
However I do think that the crucible of debate should be used to shine a light on all dogma, left and right alike. For example here's one guy with enough balls to do this:
http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1578785
Ad hominem attacks and conversation killers like "racist," "bigot," and "misogynist" don't help further the conversation. It goes without saying that the COO of the "shitty-chicken-place-that-I-never-go-to-anyway" could rightly be described as a bigot. But all this fervor makes me think we should also take a step back and examine >why< people think the way they do. There may be naturalistic explanations to why people respond the way they do to things. Religion is after all a natural phenomenon, like it or not. Maybe what people really object to is who's making a contribution to moving humanity forward? Are you doing it? Am I?
Is it difficult but still possible to listen to both sides in a vociferous debate and to take a step back from both sides and do a more thorough evaluation. Do we have the balls to ask hard questions of both sides?
In any case, let's all try to be less selfish. Think about legacy. And let the people who like the shitty chicken place go there if they want. I never go there anyway.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Sam Harris, Scott Atran, banning Islam, racism, and apology for abusive religion
Back in December of 2010 I wrote this article about Scott Atran. Atran has many basic misunderstandings about what it like to live in a conservative religion.
On February 23, 2011 Atran wrote this article criticizing Harris's new book the Moral Landscape. On page 6 of Atran's article he claims that Sam Harris has proposed a ban on Islam, but he fails to provide any references.
Harris has talked about the dangers of Islamic ideas that lead to suicide bombing.
One strange thing I heard today though was that Harris is supposedly a racist for wanting to ban Islam.
There's two really big problems with such a claim:
Problem 1: Islam is not a race. It's a religion.
Problem 2: Sam Harris has never proposed that there be a ban on Islam.
Maybe children should not be abused with having lies shoved down their throats by ignorant abusive parents. That's my view. Whether Harris was expressed concerns about this or not is irrelevant, because as far as I can tell he's never proposed a legal ban on Islam. And even if he had, such a view would not be racist, because Islam is not a race.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist. Avenue Q has stated this as well. And even with this being the case, Islam is not a race. It never was. It never will be. Religion is not a race. And, Sam Harris never said that Islam should be banned. You think he did? Prove it. And Scott Atran is an idiot, and a defato purposeful apologist for Islam and abusive religion.
In America we have freedom of religion, and thankfully increasingly freedom from religion.
Children should be educated about all human religions, their history, and so on.
Children should be educated about science, and about how in the past religions were very fearful about what science showed - for example about the Earth, the sun, the stars, and our geographic place in the Universe. Religion is still fearful about what science shows, about their supposed gods. Children should not be lied to. They should be taught the truth. And religions are full of lies, lies supported by fear & control, arguments from authority, and arguments based on abusive psycological manipulation.
People like Atran have no concept of this because they haven't lived it. Here's links to some people who have:
Me: http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm
Others: http://exmormonfoundation.org
http://ex-muslim.org.uk
A guy who lived in hard core sexually repressive Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA&feature=plcp
---
More info:
letter to Scott Atran - regarding his debates with Sam Harris and his views on religious belief
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/letter-to-scott-atran-regarding-his.html
On February 23, 2011 Atran wrote this article criticizing Harris's new book the Moral Landscape. On page 6 of Atran's article he claims that Sam Harris has proposed a ban on Islam, but he fails to provide any references.
Harris has talked about the dangers of Islamic ideas that lead to suicide bombing.
One strange thing I heard today though was that Harris is supposedly a racist for wanting to ban Islam.
There's two really big problems with such a claim:
Problem 1: Islam is not a race. It's a religion.
Problem 2: Sam Harris has never proposed that there be a ban on Islam.
Maybe children should not be abused with having lies shoved down their throats by ignorant abusive parents. That's my view. Whether Harris was expressed concerns about this or not is irrelevant, because as far as I can tell he's never proposed a legal ban on Islam. And even if he had, such a view would not be racist, because Islam is not a race.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist. Avenue Q has stated this as well. And even with this being the case, Islam is not a race. It never was. It never will be. Religion is not a race. And, Sam Harris never said that Islam should be banned. You think he did? Prove it. And Scott Atran is an idiot, and a defato purposeful apologist for Islam and abusive religion.
In America we have freedom of religion, and thankfully increasingly freedom from religion.
Children should be educated about all human religions, their history, and so on.
Children should be educated about science, and about how in the past religions were very fearful about what science showed - for example about the Earth, the sun, the stars, and our geographic place in the Universe. Religion is still fearful about what science shows, about their supposed gods. Children should not be lied to. They should be taught the truth. And religions are full of lies, lies supported by fear & control, arguments from authority, and arguments based on abusive psycological manipulation.
People like Atran have no concept of this because they haven't lived it. Here's links to some people who have:
Me: http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm
Others: http://exmormonfoundation.org
http://ex-muslim.org.uk
A guy who lived in hard core sexually repressive Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA&feature=plcp
---
More info:
letter to Scott Atran - regarding his debates with Sam Harris and his views on religious belief
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/letter-to-scott-atran-regarding-his.html
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists"
Here's some additional thoughts of the recent thunerf00t thing and some further digging revealed the following on a conservative wiki site:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_Elevatorgate_comments
Dawkins' comments have been removed from PZ Myers' website but I found the above link.
I'm not a big fan of the wiki site referenced above but at least they've got some documentation about what has occurred in the past. I believe I do share the following key value with anti-authoritarian conservatives expressed by the following phrase: "Go F yourself and stop taking yourself so F'ing seriously." While the ideology test at www.politicalcompass.org shows that I am a left leaning anti-authoritarian, I do find shared value in this phrase that is basically an appropriate response to liberal authoritarians who want us all to be censored and suppressed apparently just as much as the conservative authoritarians do.
http://open.salon.com/blog/jason_m_wester/2011/07/12/rebecca_watsons_misguided_boycott_of_richard_dawkins
And here is a link to the crazed demented drivil from a woman who's got a number of skeptical undies in a bundle: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/
But thankfully, in addition to thunderf00t's responses*, here's an appropriate response I found today:
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Rebecca_Watson&oldid=394926
And a very good video from the above site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QqU9JFbtucU#!
The phrase "don't sexualize me" by Ms. Watson reminds me of the anti-sex anti-normal-human-relations rhetoric from the book Miracle of Forgiveness, a book that draws a direct link between masturbators and murderers. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness book was and is used as a virtual bible in Mormonism to teach children to hate their own bodies as they are coming of age.
And similarly, this femist bullshit concept that naked women, or women in general shouldn't be "sexualised?" That sounds like the same abusive anti-human rhetoric I heard as a boy in the Mormon Church. And the response to such a request should be exactly the same as what I should be to the Mormon Church:
CFI (Center For Inquiry) announces an anti-discrimination policy:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/center_for_inquiry_announces_policy_on_hostile_conduct_harassment_at_confer/
And here's my response to CFI's overreaction:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/11017/P135/
*Some of thunderf00t's responses:
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/skepchick-embrace-victim-hood/
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/feminist-reduced-to-tears-by-t-shirt/
and more info is at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html
I'm not a big fan of the wiki site referenced above but at least they've got some documentation about what has occurred in the past. I believe I do share the following key value with anti-authoritarian conservatives expressed by the following phrase: "Go F yourself and stop taking yourself so F'ing seriously." While the ideology test at www.politicalcompass.org shows that I am a left leaning anti-authoritarian, I do find shared value in this phrase that is basically an appropriate response to liberal authoritarians who want us all to be censored and suppressed apparently just as much as the conservative authoritarians do.
Go F yourself and stop taking yourself so F'ing seriously.The above phrase really is quite useful. It can help us all improve our lives and the lives of others to a great extent. And frankly, the anti-male anti-normal-human-relations type rhetoric which is criticized on the following website also yields this reaction:
http://open.salon.com/blog/jason_m_wester/2011/07/12/rebecca_watsons_misguided_boycott_of_richard_dawkins
And here is a link to the crazed demented drivil from a woman who's got a number of skeptical undies in a bundle: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/
But thankfully, in addition to thunderf00t's responses*, here's an appropriate response I found today:
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Rebecca_Watson&oldid=394926
And a very good video from the above site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QqU9JFbtucU#!
The phrase "don't sexualize me" by Ms. Watson reminds me of the anti-sex anti-normal-human-relations rhetoric from the book Miracle of Forgiveness, a book that draws a direct link between masturbators and murderers. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness book was and is used as a virtual bible in Mormonism to teach children to hate their own bodies as they are coming of age.
And similarly, this femist bullshit concept that naked women, or women in general shouldn't be "sexualised?" That sounds like the same abusive anti-human rhetoric I heard as a boy in the Mormon Church. And the response to such a request should be exactly the same as what I should be to the Mormon Church:
Teaching children to hate their own bodies is abusive.The knee-jerk reactions from some quarters of the "skeptical" community in response to Ms. Watson's pedantic bayings are as follows:
And, so is asking that men & women "de-sexualize" their brains and the natural responses thereof as we open our eyes and look out on the world.
CFI (Center For Inquiry) announces an anti-discrimination policy:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/center_for_inquiry_announces_policy_on_hostile_conduct_harassment_at_confer/
And here's my response to CFI's overreaction:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/11017/P135/
*Some of thunderf00t's responses:
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/skepchick-embrace-victim-hood/
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/feminist-reduced-to-tears-by-t-shirt/
and more info is at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
New Balance model 812 shoes: Blisters after only two days
Regarding the new model 812 New Balance
shoes: I purchased the supposedly similar 811 model for many years.
New Balance did away with the 811 model and has stated many times
that their 812 model is a direct replacement. It is not. After only
two 14 hours days of wearing a new pair of 812 model shoes I had
blisters on the tops of both of my pinky toes. I stopped wearing the
812 model shoes and went back to an older 811 pair I happened to
have. I cannot wear the 812 model shoes and will not wear them in the
future. Only two 14 hours days of wear resulted in open blisters on
my feet. The 811 model shoes never did this – and I have
purchased many pairs of 811 shoes.
I called New Balance to report the open
blisters on my feet. In response a supervisor called me back. He
expressed tonal and verbal irritation that I had made an injury
report in the first place. While it's true that New Balance has
offered to replace the current pair of 812 shoes, they were also
irritated that I called them to report product related injuries.
Left toe images:
Right toe:
Left toe images:
The 812 is not a replacement for the 811. The claims of New Balance in this regard are unfounded and damaging.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Two videos found on feminism - challenging politically correct dogma
Here are two interesting videos I found on feminism:
Cristina Rad on feminism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqPG8Gvu5UU
Feminism and the disposable male:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA
Liberal dogma should be thought about and challenged just as much as conservative dogma is. Dogma is the problem. Maybe the truth will eventually overturn hysterical, frantic, and angry political correctness. Let's hope so.
Cristina Rad on feminism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqPG8Gvu5UU
Feminism and the disposable male:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA
Liberal dogma should be thought about and challenged just as much as conservative dogma is. Dogma is the problem. Maybe the truth will eventually overturn hysterical, frantic, and angry political correctness. Let's hope so.
New Balance 812: blisters after only two days
Regarding the following New Balance shoe: 812 - also known as the MW812 and MW812BK
I bought the supposedly similar 811 model for many years. New Balance did away with the 811 model and stated many times that the 812 was a direct replacement. It is not. After only two 14 hours days of wearing a new pair of 812 shoes I had blisters on the tops of both pinky toes. I went back to an older 811 pair I happened to have. Problem solved, for now. I cannot wear the 812 and will not wear it in the future. Avoid the 812. It is N-O-T a direct replacement for the 811. Beware. Rest in peace 811. We asked for your return, but New Balance has ignored all our requests.
------
An addendum to his article can be found by clicking here.
I bought the supposedly similar 811 model for many years. New Balance did away with the 811 model and stated many times that the 812 was a direct replacement. It is not. After only two 14 hours days of wearing a new pair of 812 shoes I had blisters on the tops of both pinky toes. I went back to an older 811 pair I happened to have. Problem solved, for now. I cannot wear the 812 and will not wear it in the future. Avoid the 812. It is N-O-T a direct replacement for the 811. Beware. Rest in peace 811. We asked for your return, but New Balance has ignored all our requests.
------
An addendum to his article can be found by clicking here.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Atheist conferences and sexual harassment rules
On the CFI forum here I just added the following post:
The workplace harassment classes and policies have made people afraid to engage in normal human relations at work. Extending those hysterical over-the-top fear-based policies to conferences is childish and petty in my view.
We could well draw up a huge list of things prohibited at conferences.
Simply use the following phrase template:
If you do XXXXXX to someone at our conference you will be ejected.
Here's some possible things you can plug into XXXXXX:
1. Showing your underpants to other conference participants.
2. Emitting a particularly smelly fart.
3. Doing more serious things which any reasonable police officer could arrest you for.
Some things REALLY DO go without saying. And saying them increases the amount of negativity in the air - at a conference.
The stuffy workplace is one thing. A conference is another. A conference is supposed to be a social gathering, N-O-T work.
I agree with the general French appraisal that American workplace sexual relation rules are insane. And it's also a bit crazy to have to spend one second putting into the face of conference goers this type of thing.
Go to a bar and expect drunk men to hit on you. End of story.
If you're an a-hole at a conference, maybe you'll be ejected.
Just simplify the policy to be "anti-a-hole." But if we phrased the policy like that I can easily think of one particular biologist who'd be banned immediately. And also so would the crazies who think we need to put into everyone's face this type of verbiage and text in the first place.
Speaking generally: Imposing your fears and insecurities onto other people as a matter of policy really is abusive. Not everyone is as uptight or as fearful as you are.
And no this doesn't apologize for behavior which is ACTUALLY illegal. If something illegal happens, call the cops. But conference organizers aren't our parents, nor are they cops.
The above are general comments based on general trends, and what I've been able to gather so far from the fuss.
My related post: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html
The workplace harassment classes and policies have made people afraid to engage in normal human relations at work. Extending those hysterical over-the-top fear-based policies to conferences is childish and petty in my view.
We could well draw up a huge list of things prohibited at conferences.
Simply use the following phrase template:
If you do XXXXXX to someone at our conference you will be ejected.
Here's some possible things you can plug into XXXXXX:
1. Showing your underpants to other conference participants.
2. Emitting a particularly smelly fart.
3. Doing more serious things which any reasonable police officer could arrest you for.
Some things REALLY DO go without saying. And saying them increases the amount of negativity in the air - at a conference.
The stuffy workplace is one thing. A conference is another. A conference is supposed to be a social gathering, N-O-T work.
I agree with the general French appraisal that American workplace sexual relation rules are insane. And it's also a bit crazy to have to spend one second putting into the face of conference goers this type of thing.
Go to a bar and expect drunk men to hit on you. End of story.
If you're an a-hole at a conference, maybe you'll be ejected.
Just simplify the policy to be "anti-a-hole." But if we phrased the policy like that I can easily think of one particular biologist who'd be banned immediately. And also so would the crazies who think we need to put into everyone's face this type of verbiage and text in the first place.
Speaking generally: Imposing your fears and insecurities onto other people as a matter of policy really is abusive. Not everyone is as uptight or as fearful as you are.
And no this doesn't apologize for behavior which is ACTUALLY illegal. If something illegal happens, call the cops. But conference organizers aren't our parents, nor are they cops.
The above are general comments based on general trends, and what I've been able to gather so far from the fuss.
My related post: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Thunderf00t vs P.Z. Myers: I vote for thunderf00t
Remember the old days on the Internet, when we spent most of our time on Usenet and on certain older listserv's (email discussion groups)? And what of trolls? They certainly still exist.
Anyway a few years ago I discovered the blogs of a guy who has been increasing in prominence within the "atheist" community called P.Z. Myers. His blogs are at two locations apparently:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
The first one is more longstanding but the second one relates to a more recent spat online.
My long developed evaluation of Myers is that he tends to attempt to use science to justify his ultra-left-wing views. Maybe I share some of those views, but I also think that all of our views should be up for debate. And after reading a lot of Myers' blog posts online over the years and hearing him speak more recently, I've basically come to conclude that the guy is about 30 to 40% interesting and 60 to 70% like an a-hole who acts and talks like he has a big stinky thing up his rear end on a permanent basis.
I know some people like the guy, but to me he's acerbic in a non-useful way. Hitchens was acerbic in useful ways, but Myers often comes off as a petty retard - just my view. Hitchens was acerbic and smart. Myers is acerbic but usually is also often petty and inappropriately hostile. So this was my view before the more recent spat - see below...
Next, I heard about this show called the Magic Sandwich Show, and on that show there's this guy named thunderf00t (AKA Dr. Phil Mason, a chemist) who sometimes was on that show. I took no special interest in the guy other than that he seemed interesting when he spoke.
Next I found the following blog:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/07/pz-myers-apologizes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FypxUn+%28Debunking+Christianity%29
via looking on http://www.atheistblogs.co.uk/
So what's my reaction to this spat between two somewhat prominent web & video bloggers? I'm not surprised frankly. Dr. Mason (AKA thunerf00t) probably made a mistake to associate with Myers in the first place, because Myers has a long standing tradition of booting off detractors from his own blogs in rather petty ways. This has been going on for years now. So when Dr. Myers' virtual boot hit the virtual bum of Dr. Mason, where's the surprise? There is none. It's par for the course.
I'm all for having a crucible where people can discuss things openly. As long as personal threats are not made, people should be able to debate issues and disagree openly, even vociferously, in public forums - again as long as people can avoid threatening each other or wasting space with spam.
Anyway PZ Myers' actions in this case are par for the course. Thunerf00t AKA Dr. Mason should not have been surprised. He simply got treated the may Myers tends to treat everyone in his little corner of the Net.
There is a certain hysteria in the ivory tower of academics when it comes to hearing views which are critical of the ultra-liberal status quo - speaking and saying this as a liberal myself. Reference the work of Sam Harris & Steven Pinker on this front. Myers is apparently so closely tied to the quick-willingness to pounce on perceived detractors to the hysteria that he's willing to apply the same shallow tactics to people he invites onto his blog as to all the other people he's booted off of his blog over the years now.
So, in this debate I'd tend to stand with thunderf00t (Mason) as well. Mason can start his own blog and he has one. Myers really is part of the "old school" of Internet discussions, where you could routinely get your virtual head cut off for asking an otherwise innocent question. Myers has apparently spent so many years in a virtual sewer (partly of his own making) of Internet discussions that he is apparently unable to act in a non-petty and non-shallow way himself. Spend enough time shoveling crap and eventually you'll start to enjoy the smell. So anyway that's my view on all this. Who was "right" in this recent debate? Thunerf00t, yes. Myers, no. That's my vote.
Here's more videos on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G72r6rkSfU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6iGBEFMOHU
And related blogs: http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/
http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.com/2012/06/pz-meyers-finds-bars-of-mass-harassment.html
No one wants to be abused. But I agree with Mason that when we're too vocal about there being a problem when the problem really is relatively small, then that means we're more hung up than needs be and detracting from other issues. We're also using an inappropriately broad brush and painting & tainting otherwise innocent people who really don't need to be treated like children.
If you don't want to be hit on my drunk men don't go to bars. End of story. No more needs to be said, and in my view atheist conference organizers do not need to treat attendeeds like they're guilty until proven innocent, nor like children.
People shouldn't be censored for speaking their mind, or shut down or shut out for saying what they think and feel.
Anyway a few years ago I discovered the blogs of a guy who has been increasing in prominence within the "atheist" community called P.Z. Myers. His blogs are at two locations apparently:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
The first one is more longstanding but the second one relates to a more recent spat online.
My long developed evaluation of Myers is that he tends to attempt to use science to justify his ultra-left-wing views. Maybe I share some of those views, but I also think that all of our views should be up for debate. And after reading a lot of Myers' blog posts online over the years and hearing him speak more recently, I've basically come to conclude that the guy is about 30 to 40% interesting and 60 to 70% like an a-hole who acts and talks like he has a big stinky thing up his rear end on a permanent basis.
I know some people like the guy, but to me he's acerbic in a non-useful way. Hitchens was acerbic in useful ways, but Myers often comes off as a petty retard - just my view. Hitchens was acerbic and smart. Myers is acerbic but usually is also often petty and inappropriately hostile. So this was my view before the more recent spat - see below...
Next, I heard about this show called the Magic Sandwich Show, and on that show there's this guy named thunderf00t (AKA Dr. Phil Mason, a chemist) who sometimes was on that show. I took no special interest in the guy other than that he seemed interesting when he spoke.
Next I found the following blog:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/07/pz-myers-apologizes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FypxUn+%28Debunking+Christianity%29
via looking on http://www.atheistblogs.co.uk/
So what's my reaction to this spat between two somewhat prominent web & video bloggers? I'm not surprised frankly. Dr. Mason (AKA thunerf00t) probably made a mistake to associate with Myers in the first place, because Myers has a long standing tradition of booting off detractors from his own blogs in rather petty ways. This has been going on for years now. So when Dr. Myers' virtual boot hit the virtual bum of Dr. Mason, where's the surprise? There is none. It's par for the course.
I'm all for having a crucible where people can discuss things openly. As long as personal threats are not made, people should be able to debate issues and disagree openly, even vociferously, in public forums - again as long as people can avoid threatening each other or wasting space with spam.
Anyway PZ Myers' actions in this case are par for the course. Thunerf00t AKA Dr. Mason should not have been surprised. He simply got treated the may Myers tends to treat everyone in his little corner of the Net.
There is a certain hysteria in the ivory tower of academics when it comes to hearing views which are critical of the ultra-liberal status quo - speaking and saying this as a liberal myself. Reference the work of Sam Harris & Steven Pinker on this front. Myers is apparently so closely tied to the quick-willingness to pounce on perceived detractors to the hysteria that he's willing to apply the same shallow tactics to people he invites onto his blog as to all the other people he's booted off of his blog over the years now.
So, in this debate I'd tend to stand with thunderf00t (Mason) as well. Mason can start his own blog and he has one. Myers really is part of the "old school" of Internet discussions, where you could routinely get your virtual head cut off for asking an otherwise innocent question. Myers has apparently spent so many years in a virtual sewer (partly of his own making) of Internet discussions that he is apparently unable to act in a non-petty and non-shallow way himself. Spend enough time shoveling crap and eventually you'll start to enjoy the smell. So anyway that's my view on all this. Who was "right" in this recent debate? Thunerf00t, yes. Myers, no. That's my vote.
Here's more videos on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G72r6rkSfU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6iGBEFMOHU
And related blogs: http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/
http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.com/2012/06/pz-meyers-finds-bars-of-mass-harassment.html
No one wants to be abused. But I agree with Mason that when we're too vocal about there being a problem when the problem really is relatively small, then that means we're more hung up than needs be and detracting from other issues. We're also using an inappropriately broad brush and painting & tainting otherwise innocent people who really don't need to be treated like children.
If you don't want to be hit on my drunk men don't go to bars. End of story. No more needs to be said, and in my view atheist conference organizers do not need to treat attendeeds like they're guilty until proven innocent, nor like children.
People shouldn't be censored for speaking their mind, or shut down or shut out for saying what they think and feel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)