The MetaSkeptic

American Philosopher Deirdre McCloskey on "Crossing Over"

2010-11-22T19:08:00.000-08:00

In one of my recent graduate seminars, we read a paper by Deirdre McCloskey, an American philosopher and economist who teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Aside from her intriguing defense of consumerist culture, I became interested in McCloskey for another reason: she was raised as a boy.

It's rare enough to find genderbending success stories in our rigidly dichotomous male-and-female culture, but to find one in my own field of study is particularly heartwarming. McCloskey is a Distinguished Professor at UIC, lecturing not only in Economics and Philosophy, but also History, English, Communications, and Classics. She's also received two honorary doctorates since 2007.

The quotes below are from her autobiography, Crossing: A Memoir. I found these statements profound in their simplicity, brilliantly shedding light on the ignorance behind our current beliefs and policies surrounding gender reassignment. Read these passages and then try to tell me she's confused or crazy. I won't believe you.

On identity:

It's strange to have been a man and now to be a woman. But it's no stranger perhaps than having been a West African and now being an American, or once a priest and now a businessman. Free people keep deciding to make strange crossings, from storekeeper to monk or from civilian to soldier or from man to woman. Crossing boundaries is a minority interest, but human.

I visited womanhood and stayed. It was not for the pleasures, though I discovered many I had not imagined, and many pains too. But calculating pleasures and pains was not the point. The point was who I am.

I say in response to your question of why?, "Can't I just be?" You, dear reader, are. No one gets indignant if you have no answer to why you are an optimist or why you like peach ice cream.

On barriers to medical care:

[I] had complained to Blue Cross: "The DSM-IV you rely on calls transsexuality a 'disorder,' and, unusually among such 'disorders,' this one has a cure - surgical, including facial surgery'. But then you won't pay for it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a personal choice, in which case the psychiatrists should butt out, or it's a disorder, in which case medical insurance should pay for the cure.

Anyway...we need to ask whether we want to invite psychiatrists to have power over all the comparably important business of life. Having a baby is well and truly irreversible, more so than gender reassignment. A new human being is brought into the world. Well, shouldn't everyone have many years of psychological counseling before having a child?

[I] started lying. [We] all do it. A psychiatrist proposes to withhold a desired and harmless life from a free, sane adult based on no scientific evidence and no intelligent empathy for the patient and no understanding that the DSM's list of symptoms rewrites the society's myths about gender. ... "Oh, yes," [I] said to the Free University psychiatrist, "I've always had these desires. Oh, yes, Doctor, ever since I can remember. Oh, yes it's just like being a woman in a man's body. Oh, yes, I hate my penis." Oh, yes, Doctor, whatever your dopey list says.

From an actuarial point of view, there's no moral hazard. It's not as if millions of men will step forward to take advantage if gender reassignment and jaw pointing are paid for. The policy is sheer, stupid crossphobia. Sweet land of liberty and of stubborn, self-justifying hatreds.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the 'F' bomb

2010-10-24T14:13:00.000-07:00

Especially in light of my previous post about the abortion debate, I like to think I'm fairly sympathetic to the feminist cause. Unjust inequality of any form riles me up, and I'll jump to the defense of any disadvantaged group, at any time. So I was surprised when I found myself being (mildly) rebuked by a feminist friend of mine. Specifically, she took issue with a video I linked to on Facebook:

The video shows a lot of gays and gay allies saying "Fuck off!" to opponents of same-sex marriage. There are also two children in the video (about 11 years old, I guess) who drop the 'F' bomb in defense of their gay parents.

My friend left this comment:

While I want to like this because I agree with the sentiment 100%, the feminist in me cringes with the casual use of the word "fuck" (especially by children! oh my). "Fuck" implies getting "fucked" or "fucking" someone, which implies penetration (for better or for worse) and, beyond that, penetration with little respect for the person getting "fucked" (i.e.--my boss fucked me over). If you don't agree with me, think of any synonym for "fucked" (screwed, pounded, whatever)--it all goes back to penetration which goes back to penises used as weapons, not for the betterment of society ;).

Really, I have no idea what to think about that. I like the word 'fuck'. It's versatile, emphatic, and thoroughly enjoyable to say. It can express a wide range of emotions and function as just about any part of speech. Actually, I think there has been no better addition to the English language since 'doucheknuckle'*. This video sums up my feelings on the word fairly well:

But I'm going to open this up to readers. Is 'fuck' anti-feminist? Anti-woman? Okay in some circumstances? Appropriate for the video above? Discuss!

*Not yet recognized by most dictionaries.

Two Concessions to the Right-Wing Fringe

2010-10-22T12:47:00.000-07:00

Those of you who know me well can attest to the fact that I despise anti-abortion wingnuts. My own state of Colorado currently has a pro-life amendment on the ballot that would apply the term "person" to every sperm and egg that happen to bump into each other. If the amendment passes, a fertilized egg will have the same legal rights as your Uncle Bob, and a lot more than your pet dog Jolly.

It would be funny, except a depressing 27% of Colorado citizens voted in favor of the amendment the last time it was on the ballot. It honestly frightens me to think that almost 1 in 3 people I meet on the streets think this is a good idea.

So why do I care about this so much? Partly because it's wrong and stupid, but mostly because I can't stand bullies. We've all heard the horror stories about the prostitutes and rich women who use abortion as a form of birth control, but even if these are true (and I doubt that most of them are), they do not represent the majority of women who consider abortions. Many women entering abortion clinics are undereducated (thanks, abstinence-only sex education!), or poor, or young, or victims of rape. Some were just careless, but I doubt they're any less frightened about the prospect of becoming mothers by accident. By and large, women considering abortions are at one of the most vulnerable and difficult times of their lives. And then you have the lousy right-wing fuckheads telling them they're murderers. My blood fucking boils at the thought.*

But I have to make two concessions to these ~~retards~~ campaigners. With the November election drawing closer, there are many arguments flying around (from both sides) that simply don't make sense. Here are two from the pro-choice side that I feel obligated to put down.

1. Men should not vote or campaign for a law that will only affect women.

I admit, pro-life men piss me off. Unlike pro-choice women, they never even have to consider what they would do in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. (You can argue that they're affected if their spouse gets pregnant unexpectedly, but I'm talking about having a fucking basketball-sized tumor swimming around in their bellies.) But you must remember why pro-life people are opposed to abortion. They honestly believe, rationally or not, that every tiny fetus is a human being and that doing anything to the fetus is actually murder. Stupid as that is, it is a matter of human rights to them. You can't ban men from the discussion simply because they can't get pregnant. Also, by that logic, men shouldn't vote in favor of pro-choice laws, either. I shouldn't be writing this blog post now. Etc.

Anyways, it's hardly less aggravating that pro-life women are trying to force this law down the throats of other women.

2. It is a woman's choice to abort or not abort.

Okay, wait. I have to add a LARGE disclaimer to this one, because it's practically the pro-choice maxim. Let me say right away that I totally agree with this statement. Read the first part of my post if you have any doubts whatsoever. But I have to point out that this statement does not answer the pro-life claim that abortion is murder. Again, for those on the pro-life side, abortion is a matter of human rights.

Their argument is as follows:

P1. Killing an innocent person is murder.
P2. A fetus is an innocent person.
__________
Therefore, killing a fetus is murder.

If you just respond to this argument by claiming that abortion is a woman's choice, then your argument fails. If a fetus is an innocent person, then killing that fetus is indeed murder. And no one has the right to choose to murder someone else.

So in order to adequately respond to this argument, you have to show that the second premise is false. You can bring in scientific studies that show when a fetus begins to feel pain or becomes conscious. You can argue about what features a human being must have in order to deserve moral consideration. You can attack the idea that there is anything like a 'soul' that every human receives at conception. But you can't just say that abortion is a woman's choice. That is a conclusion, not an argument.

I conclude that abortion is a woman's choice because a fetus is not a person for reasons X, Y, and Z. And that's what I'll argue with any pro-life proponent.

So that's about as far as I'll ever get to defending a pro-life position. Incidentally, if I know you and you vote Yes on Amendment 62, please don't think we'll ever be on good terms. You and everyone else without the goddamn decency to stop and think rationally for a moment deserve every bit of ridicule and contempt I can muster the effort to heap upon you. Go to hell.

*Incidentally, this is probably also a large part of the reason why I'm so concerned about animal rights. Animals are in an even more precarious position because they can't defend themselves at all. Unlike women, every single one of their interests depends on a small handful of humans who can be bothered to consult their consciences.

The Metaskeptic is on Hiatus

2010-09-01T15:36:00.001-07:00

Dear followers,

My life is currently moving along at a breakneck speed, and I find it necessary to put blogging and most other recreational internet activities on hold until further notice. I will not be keeping up with Twitter, Facebook, or Google Reader. Please, if I follow your blog and you write something spectacular that you think I'd want to read, email me a link! Thank you for your continued support of this blog. I hope to return to regular blogging activities shortly.

Thank you,

Kai

Dr. Manhattan as God: A Thought Experiment

2010-08-10T16:46:00.000-07:00

This is a thought experiment I've posed to several of my Christian friends:

Dr. Manhattan is a character from Alan Moore's graphic novel Watchmen. He is a human physicist who developed extraordinary powers after he was involved in a lab accident. Dr. Manhattan has the power to create sentient life, perhaps even life with human-like intelligence. Assume he creates another Earth and another human race to populate it. Assume further that many of his creations become monotheistic and worship him as God.

Now, Dr. Manhattan is not omniscient or omnipotent. Actually, in many ways, he's just another fallible human. He suffers from jealousy, anger, and hate. He can fall in love. He often changes his mind, and sometimes has contradictory interests. Overall, though, he's a pretty decent person.

Are the people on the other Earth right to worship him as their creator?

Everyone I've asked has said no, it's not right to call Dr. Manhattan a god. I continue with the thought experiment:

Suppose the alternate Earth shares a similar history with our own Earth. There are several major world religions, one of which is almost exactly identical to Christianity. There is a holy book similar to the Bible. Their Bible is full of false history, mistaken facts, and bad moral advice. They incorrectly attribute certain characteristics (such as omnipotence) to Dr. Manhattan, who is their God. Some of them perform horrific acts of injustice and use their Bible as a justification. Dr. Manhattan, for whatever reason, doesn't correct their mistakes, and actually rarely interferes in their world at all.

Now are the people on the other Earth right to worship him as their creator?

Again, everyone I've asked has said no, only louder and more vehemently. So on to my final question:

How do you know you are not on that Earth? How do you know your God is not Dr. Manhattan?

I've yet to hear a satisfactory response. Anyone care to offer one?

You are religious. Get over it.

2010-08-05T08:12:00.000-07:00

Facebook trolls are fun:

im not religious...but yes, I do believe in jesus and the teachings of the bible.

It's not just trolls saying this, either: I can't tell you the number of times I've started talking about religion with a Christian only to be interrupted by, "Oh, I'm not religious. I just have a personal relationship with Christ."

Well, I'm not gay. I just like to suck cock.

Seriously, guys. Saying you're not affiliated with a religion does not absolve you of responsibility for the evils that have come out of having certain beliefs. Man up. It's better to admit that wrong has been done in the name of your religion than to try to squirm away from the label entirely. Oh, and if you still insist that the word doesn't apply to you, read the fucking definition.

It's a Gay New Day

2010-08-04T17:04:00.000-07:00

Today, a Californian court slapped down the loathsome and vile piece of legislation known as Proposition 8. Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Prop 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license" and that "the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples".

Well done, Judge Walker. Very well done.

CELEBRATORY GAY ORGIES WOOO

SSA Conference (Saturday)

2010-08-01T14:17:00.001-07:00

I know, it's been over a week since the SSA Con and I still haven't posted anything about the good part of the weekend. Everyone's probably already bored with the topic, but if you're not, stay around! Saturday was amazing.

(This is the third part of a short blog series on the SSA conference; you can read the first two parts here and here.)

The Talks

I don't know what I expected from the talks. Obviously, I went to the conference hoping to learn a thing or two, but I suspected it would be pretty hit-or-miss with the speakers. I needn't have worried. Every speaker was an experienced activist leader and knew which topics would be most useful to student group leaders looking to make their group succeed. I'm only going to cover the highlights here, but rest assured that the other presentations had a lot of great information too.

Lyz Liddell, the Director of Campus Organizing at the SSA, talked about Why Groups Die and How You Can Save Yours. As an officer in a very new group, I am concerned about what will happen to the group when I and all the other original officers graduate. Lyz discussed how to create solid infrastructure for a group to make sure it can survive long after the founders have left campus. I picked up a lot of great tips from the talk, and took note of all the cautionary advice. Critics beware: LIFT will be around for a long time if I have anything to say about it.

Jesse Galef, the Communications Director for the SSA, gave a presentation on How to be a Media Pirate. He talked about how to keep pushing your group into the public eye through newspapers, radio, and television. This is one thing my group hasn't done very well. Jesse's right, though, getting your name out there is a very important part of making your group useful and relevant.

Nate Mauger, a student at Ohio State University and a staff member at SSA, talked about how to interact and cooperate with campus religious groups. I liked this talk a lot because it made me realize how useful and educational working with religious groups can be. For one thing, it can be a great way to address misconceptions about atheists. It can also prevent all of us from making hasty and stereotyped conclusions about the other group. I would like to see LIFT get involved with one or more religious groups on campus this next year.

Debbie Goddard, the campus outreach coordinator at CFI, presented on diversity and why it's important to the freethought movement. She and Greta Christina both stressed the importance of reaching out to women and racial minorities in skepticism, before we end up alienating these groups entirely. I'm going to post more on this at a later time, since I have a lot to say about it.

Finally, there was the keynote speech by Greta Christina. I'm actually not going to talk about her speech here, as it deserves a post on its own. Let's just say that Greta brought up a whole slew of interesting ideas, and I want more space to dissect them in depth.

The People

You might have already picked up that I'm not much of an extrovert. I do fine with one-to-one conversations, but groups of people make me uncomfortable (great quality for a student leader, right?). So I wasn't really expecting to have a great time interacting with the other students at the conference. Again, I was happy to be proven wrong. I spent most of the day hanging out with Mark and the other Purdue people (Jen and Mike), and met Jeff, Hank, and Robbie from the University of Minnesota (those CASH kids are awesome). There were many other great people, of course; I only wish there had been more time to get to know them better!

The day ended with booze, of course, and much hilarity and debauchery ensued. I think that's all that needs to be said. ;)

SSA Conference (Friday)

2010-07-27T19:13:00.001-07:00

Hello, I'm back! I didn't have internet access for the rest of the conference, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have had time to blog anything even if I did. This is the second part of a short blog series on the SSA conference; you can read the first part here.

I'm just going to say it--Friday sucked. I was still tired from my miserable plane trip (I hadn't slept well in the heat) and I was surrounded by people I didn't know. I'm stressed out by crowds, by meeting people, and by being a guest in another person's house, so I was not feeling very happy. On top of all that, we spent most of the day at the Columbus Zoo.

Don't get me wrong. I love zoos. I volunteered for the St. Louis Zoo for a semester, and went there almost every week. But have I mentioned the heat? It was BAD. I honestly nearly fainted, it was so bad. On top of that, sweat kept pouring into my eyes and made it nearly impossible to see*. At that point, I just didn't care about looking at the animals anymore. I was just concentrating on not falling over.

There was a talk of some kind at one point, but I didn't hear most of it. Again, the heat. There's a picture of me on Facebook where I'm just slumped in my seat with my eyes closed. I'm sorry, professor guy, I was half-dead by then. :(

We finally made it back to campus, where I checked into my dorm room. One of my roommates (I eventually had three roommates--in a TINY TINY quad) was already there, which was fortunate, because I didn't bring my own shampoo (*cough*). After I showered, I fell face-down on my bed and didn't move again for several hours.

I woke up in time for registration and opening remarks, which was, again, stressful. Not because of the heat this time (we had A/C), but because of the whole meeting-people-and-having-conversations thing. I did finally say hi to Hemant, Jen from Blag Hag, and Mark (Jen's friend, whom I've known online for quite a while), but then promptly retreated into the back of the conference room for the rest of the evening. There was an awards ceremony for student groups who put on excellent events, and Mark and Jen's group received Best Service Project award for their Send an Atheist to Church event. I don't remember if anything else happened that night; I was busy staring at the ceiling and hoping that Sunday came quickly.

After registration was over, I went back to the dorms and crashed, exhausted. I was not a very friendly or happy person at that point, and I really just wanted to go home.

...and that was Friday. Don't worry, it got much, MUCH better. Stay tuned for details on the rest of the weekend!

*My friend Mark had much worse eye problems, though, so I'm not going to complain...too much.

SSA Conference (Thursday - Friday morning)

2010-07-23T07:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I left home at 3:00am to travel to the annual Secular Student Alliance conference. Four planes, five airports, and 12 hours later, I stepped out into the muggy heat of Columbus, Ohio. A combination of extreme sleep deprivation, travel nerves, and suffocation in this horrible climate rendered me nearly insensible for the rest of the evening (an evening spent at the house of Students for Freethought president Samantha Snyder, our very generous and friendly host). Now that I've slept, I'm alert and ready to report on the goings on of student skeptics from around the country!

Today's schedule:

Trip to the Columbus Zoo with Jeffrey Mckee, a biology professor from Ohio State University. He will be speaking on the biology of evolution, using live animals to illustrate.
Some sort of welcoming ceremony thingy.
Lots of orgies (probably).

At some point, I hope to corner Hemant Mehta and ask him if he wants to be a guest on Rational Alchemy, but I don't know if I'll get the chance. I'll keep updating throughout the conference!*

*With a stolen netbook, of course. I didn't bring my laptop.

A Dose of Hypocrisy

2010-07-09T13:35:00.000-07:00

Remember when I posted about that iPhone application based on the Index of Creationist Claims, by TalkOrigins? I said:

The skeptic's movement should be promoting critical thinking and independent research. We need to teach people how to think and argue, not what to think and argue. If any clown can scroll to the appropriate claim and read off a stock answer, that's missing the whole point. That's not skepticism. That's mindlessly rehearsing someone else's argument--exactly what the creationists themselves do.

Well, I was thoroughly thrashed in the comments section of Pharyngula for daring to compare skeptics to creationists.

But now, there's a similar app targeted to Christians. Hemant Mehta rips on it in his blog:

Bring it on.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian or an atheist — Intelligent people who really know their arguments will always be better off than a person equipped with an iPhone app containing suggested responses.

I totally agree with that statement. That's pretty much what I said, actually. But do you want to know the funny part? Hemant endorsed the app for skeptics!

Do you ever find yourself in a heated debate with Creationists and all you have with you is your iPhone?!

Yes. Yes, you do. Every day.

That’s why you want to download Creationist Claims by Insomnia Addict — it’s the iPhone version of The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak.

A little consistency here would be nice, people!

Why yes, I AM comparing homosexuality to pedophilia.

2010-07-06T18:23:00.000-07:00

I have participated in many debates concerning the morality of homosexuality, and almost invariably the debate will turn into a discussion about whether or not sexual orientation is a choice. For the life of me, I can't figure out how this is relevant. I mean, I sort of get why people bring it up. People who are against gay rights want to show that gay people are rebelling against God's will and that they could be just as happy (or even more so!) in a straight relationship. People who support gay rights want to show the opposite.

But it doesn't matter.

Well, that's not exactly true. It's an interesting question for biologists, sociologists, psychologists, etc., and I certainly think it's a valid line of inquiry. But it doesn't affect the morality issue in the slightest. Just look at pedophilia. It seems unlikely to me that most pedophiles choose to be attracted to children when the consequences of that "choice" are so dire (sexual frustration at the best, life in prison at the worst). However, whether or not they have a choice in their attraction, pedophiles are morally obligated to not act on their desires.

Similarly, whether or not people choose to be gay has no bearing on whether homosexual acts are immoral. If we found out that sexual orientation is indeed a choice, would that make homosexuality wrong? No, because homosexuality is amoral. No defensible ethical theory can make sex between consenting adults a moral issue. It's like preferring green over white; morality doesn't come into it at all. (Or, if you oppose gay rights, would scientific evidence that sexual orientation is not a choice convince you that it's okay? I doubt it.)

So, regardless of which side you come down on, keep choice out of the morality debate. It's distracting and irrelevant.

Christianity vs. Islam

2010-07-04T12:11:00.000-07:00

Epic.

(Via Common Sense Atheism)

Elitism Gone Bad

2010-07-03T09:56:00.000-07:00

Don't get me wrong, I'm an elitist. My taste in books, movies, food, etc. is almost certainly better than yours*. You doubtlessly think the same about your own tastes, and that's okay. We're different people and enjoy different things. As a friend of mine likes to say, "De gustibus non est disputandum". ("There is no disputing about tastes.") But sometimes, people slide out of the realm of mere preference and start to make claims about the objective value of things. Unfortunately, many of these opinions are still based on arbitrary preference, but they're taken as obvious facts about the world and anyone who dissents doesn't just have poor taste, they're wrong. This is elitism gone bad, and it's driving me nuts.

An example:

A few weeks ago, I drove home to see my family. I rented a car for the trip, and ended up with a Prius. I didn't request one, but I was excited to try driving one for the first time. I'd heard a lot of things about the car, from people on both sides, and wanted to find out for myself whether it was worth a damn. Turns out, I loved it. It was quiet, turned smoothly, accelerated well, and barely strained over the mountains. I don't know a lot about cars, but I've driven my share of really shitty vehicles and this was not one of them. I also spent about $40 in gas for the entire trip, which was fucking sweet.

So I got home, and I started telling a friend about the trip and how pleased I was with the car. She cut in, "You rented a Prius? Those cars are shit!" I expected that reaction out of this particular person, but I went ahead and asked her why she thought the Prius was a bad car. She mumbled something about "power" and started talking about some sports car that was so much better than a Prius.

Again, I don't know a lot about cars, so I asked her to explain her comment about "power". After all, I could be mistaken about the value of the Prius, and I definitely want to avoid buying one if I am! Would it poop out on me at certain speeds? What about winter driving, and regular trips through the mountains? More importantly, was there another car that drove as well or better, with similar gas mileage, for a comparable price? In response, she threw out some numbers on horsepower and RPMs and started talking about Sports Car X again.

Thing is, I don't care about Sports Car X, although I'm sure it outperforms the Prius in many, many ways. I want to know about other affordable cars that perform as well or better than the Prius. It's a shitty car if it performs poorly for what it's supposed to do. I kept making this point to my friend, who finally got frustrated and spat out something about how Prius owners are "smug assholes". Hm. Forgive me if I'm not convinced.

More recently, I've started to pick up web design. I haven't done any in the past and decided to use Dreamweaver to learn the basics and quickly throw up a simple website. Immediately, I was jumped on by anyone who's ever done even a little bit of web design. Dreamweaver is utter shit, I can't believe you don't know better, etc. One person even grabbed my keyboard and started typing HTML in NotePad to show me the real way to do it.

From what I understand, the main objection to Dreamweaver is you have limited control over what kinds of features you can put on a website. There also seemed to be a more subtle accusation that using Adobe software somehow makes me an agent of the man. First off, I'm not trying for anything amazing here; I want a simple, navigable website that doesn't look like shit. Dreamweaver can do that. Second, who is this freaking man, and why does he care what software I use? (Software I didn't even buy, I might add: I have free access to CS3 through our library computers.)

Basically, I'm pissed that people get these wild notions about certain things and react almost violently to the mere suggestion that they might not be worthless! What is going on here? Please enlighten me!

*Granted, I really love bad movies, but I like them because they're bad.

Why some special ed programs are a waste of money

2010-06-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

I recently ran across this article about special education programs in the United States. The article follows Donovan Forde, a 20-year-old man who suffered traumatic brain injury as a baby and is now mentally disabled. Donovan has spent the last fifteen years in public school, learning practical skills and basic academic subjects that would be easy for a first-grader.

At a time when his peers are enrolled in college or earning money at jobs, Donovan, a handsome 20-year-old with a sliver of a mustache, is still in public school, being taught the most basic of facts. His vocabulary for this science unit, which lasted about two weeks, was three words: seeds, fruit and juice.

I don't want to comment on special education programs generally, but in Donovan's case...what is the freaking point? How is Donovan ever going to appreciate knowing the word for "fruit"? How will that help him live a comfortable life? Moreover, his mother attests that, in the fifteen years Donovan has spent in school, he has made almost no progress (aside from acquiring better social skills). Actually, she would prefer that the school concentrate on Donovan's practical challenges (like his tendency to hit himself) or on his physical therapy lessons. But Rebecca Bravo, the principle of Donovan's school, says that severely disabled people like him need more.

Ms. Bravo does not want to go back to the days when students like Donovan were given only art and music instruction, along with a narrow focus on practical skills.
“For too long, that’s where we kept them, in art and music, and we didn’t give them some of the other things they needed,” she said.

There are very compelling reasons why we haven't tried to teach severely disabled people stuff like science and math. Because it's pointless. Even if you can get them to grasp a few basic ideas, like apples grow from seeds and 4 plus 4 makes 8, how are they going to use that information? They're never going to need to balance a checkbook or irrigate a field. Far from preserving human dignity (or whatever else this sort of education is supposed to accomplish), these educators are wasting their time and Donovan's. He could be spending his days listening to music (he likes to sing) and maybe learning how to feed himself. Those activities are not demeaning, they're appropriate for his abilities.

Finally, look how much programs like this cost.

In 2009, the cost per student was $58,877, more than triple the citywide average of $17,696.

With that much money, we could send a disadvantaged student to college at no cost. We could improve the quality of our grade school programs so kids who aren't disabled have a chance to learn and contribute something to the world. We could do a lot of things that will actually accomplish something. This program is a misguided attempt to provide a "normal" educational experience to someone who simply won't appreciate it.

Ex-gay homophobe says stupid stuff. (Surprised?)

2010-06-27T07:47:00.000-07:00

Adam Hood, an ex-gay man turned Christian, calls homosexuality an abomination, a tragedy, and even "the most wicked sin" (at 3:20). Forget genocide, infanticide, slavery, and rape! No, one man sticking it up another man's butt (because male-on-male buttfucking is the only homosexual practice!) is God's Number One No-No.

Yeah, I totally believe he's straight now. That shiny gold scarf and dinky little goatee scream I Love Pussy. Dang, if I knew straight men were so fabulous, I would have never fallen into the depravity and sickness of homosexual behavior!

It's not us they should be mad at. Get mad at the Word of God!

No. No, you do not get to pass off the responsibility here. You decide to believe that a centuries-old text is the infallible word of God. You decide to interpret it to say that homosexuals are perverted degenerates who deserve Hell. Most importantly, you vote for elected officials who oppose the rights of normal, decent people to get married, hold steady jobs, and have children. I am mad at you.

You're not going to help anybody by sugar-coating the sin. No, you've got to leave them with the weight of the guilt and the shame, even if it makes them hate you temporarily.

I understand that you are ashamed and disgusted by yourself. And that's very tragic. But that does not make it okay to make other people feel the same way about themselves. There's a reason why LGBT youth are almost 10 times as likely to attempt suicide as non-LGBT youth*, and it's because people like you make them think they're dirty, disgusting freaks. Fuck you.

So many men who are lost in homosexuality--I say "lost" because they are straight up lost--they haven't had fathers in the household or they were abused sexually by a father or an uncle or some man...there are many other reasons, but a lot of it has to do with being fatherless.

See? Homosexuality is all about lonely, misguided mama's boys buttfucking each other. I'm almost envious of how completely invisible lesbians are to homophobic asswipes like Adam, but I suspect that part of it has to do with the misogyny inherent in such a patriarchial religion. We all know that lesbians are just straight women who can't find a decent Christian man to lead them in the right direction. If we make all the gay men into straight, god-loving folks, then vulnerable young women won't have to seek comfort in the arms of other girls!

A man's seed is not meant to eat crap and die....God didn't want that to go in that direction. That's the most filthy way for the sperm to go. It's literally filthy, it's disgusting, it's even dangerous. It's so dirty that it causes diseases and can harm you, physically.

Adam is right, poop is kind of gross. That's why we have enemas. And condoms. And besides, men can have other types of sex with each other. This is exactly why arguments against homosexuality fail: there is not one argument leveled against homosexuality that applies to all and only homosexuals. Have a problem with sodomy? Straight people do it too. Have a problem with disease? STDs are not limited to gay men (and lesbians have lower rates of infection than anyone!). Have a problem with non-reproductive sex? Go after infertile people. Ban condoms. Have a problem with sex outside of marriage? Let gay people marry.

Fundamentalists like Adam and this dumbass are trying to argue that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. But in order to defend that claim, you either have to find a practice that is unique to homosexuals (and practiced by all of them), or you have to stop pretending to offer rational arguments, throw up your hands, and say God says so. One or the other, folks.

(via Unreasonable Faith)

*Figure obtained from this study found in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Humanitarianism and the Value of a Life

2010-06-18T18:29:00.000-07:00

In moral theory, a positive duty is a one that obliges you to act while a negative duty obliges you not to act. For example, saving a baby from drowning might be a positive duty, and not drowning the baby yourself might be a negative duty. If you accept the claim that we all have positive duties toward other people (a claim that many libertarians at least partly deny), then you might wonder what exactly those duties entail. Peter Singer addresses this issue in a New York Times article: "What Should a Billionaire Give--and What Should You?"

Singer examines the philanthropic work of billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (both of whom have made substantial contributions to charity) and poses the question: have they done enough? Gates, according to Singer, has donated close to 30 billion dollars to aid efforts and Buffett has given over 40 billion. These are obviously huge sums of money, but look at what they have left: Gates is valued at 53 billion dollars*, and Buffett at 47 billion*. Gates could give away an additional 52 billion dollars, and still live very comfortably for the rest of his life. Should he?

You might take a "fair-share" approach and say that Gates and Buffett have fulfilled their part of the world's obligation to the poor. I think there is a lot of appeal to this approach. Gates has given approximately 48% of his net worth to charity, and Buffett has donated a whopping 78% of his net worth**. How many of us can criticize that without being hypocritical? (Not me!)

However, I cannot help but agree with Singer's condemnation of the "fair-share" approach. He argues that, if we can easily save or better another life at a minimal cost to ourselves, then it is morally correct to do so, regardless of how much we've done in the past. After all, we would condemn anyone who would allow a baby to drown in a puddle just because they've already saved a lot of other babies.

There are some pretty serious consequences attached to this position. Consider Zell Kravinsky, who is an exemplary adherent to this version of utilitarianism. In 2002, Kravinsky donated one of his kidneys to a complete stranger. (He specified that the recipient should be a low-income black person as people in this demographic have a very hard time obtaining transplants.) This probably seems very extreme to most people. In fact, two hospitals turned down his request--presumably because they thought he was crazy. His wife nearly divorced him for the same reason. But is he crazy? Kravinsky points out that the chance he would die during the procedure was about 1 in 4000. He believed that, under those circumstances, "[withholding] a kidney from someone who would otherwise die means valuing one’s own life at 4,000 times that of a stranger".

Most Americans will assert that every human life is of equal value. If you truly believe that, shouldn't you keep giving until you're in the same position as those you're helping? At the very least, shouldn't you give until you have just enough money and belongings to have a minimally decent life? If you don't believe that, where do you draw the line?

How much is a human life worth to you, really?

*Figures obtained from Wikipedia.
**According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

Insect of the Week: Darwin's Beetle

2010-05-07T16:30:00.000-07:00

This clip is kinda brilliant. From the BBC's new Life documentary:

The YouTube comments are possibly even better than the video:

He fought his way to the top, kicked all sorts of ass, got laid and tosses the bitch overboard as well, this guys is one hell of a bad ass --dark2200

Beetle surprise butt secks. --Paomnnehal

That beetle was asking for it walking around like she owned that branch. --chicexotica

Haha..."Bitch I just fought like 10 dudes, now give it up!" And then..."Alright bitch, I'm done. Get the fuck off my tree." So human-like! --HeadoftheHydra

The Horrors of Facebook Debate

2010-04-28T19:28:00.000-07:00

I would very dearly love to hear some responses from my readers on this latest bit of godawful stupidity I picked up from a Facebook debate. (I kindly withhold the author's name and relation to myself so he might retain some small shred of dignity. I am far too nice.) This was written in response to a post my brother Nate wrote in which he (Nate) argued in favor of gay marriage.

Nate, as you have asked so kindly I will join your little debate here, but understand that my thoughts are strictly how I see things and are not based on my personal beliefs.

To my understanding, there is a vast difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Let's compare the two.

HETEROSEXUAL - These types of relationships, if not abused, usually do not lead to either one of the partners have any form of STD. And, if both the male and female entities of the relationship are virgins, their potential offspring has a very small chance of being born with any disease. Sure various children are born with defects, but I'd attribute that more to the mother's incompetence when caring the child. Obviously, there are certain practices that must be done and there are also certain habits that must be broken so as to have a healthy baby (i.e. not smoking while carrying the child or stop drinking alcohol while carrying the child). Also, there are various reasons why a woman might be physically incapable of bearing children and thus it is better if said type of person refrains from trying to have a child (best way is birth control). To continue on my main point, heterosexual relationships are, for the most part, pleasing to both individuals. This, again, is if the relationship and sexual desires are not abused. With wise decision making on both the male and the female ends of the spectrum, abortion can be avoided. If the child is unwanted by the parents for whatever reason, is it not better to give the child a chance at life by way of giving it up for adoption?

HOMOSEXUAL - These types of relationships have pretty much one sole purpose. To give and receive sexually stimulated pleasure. Most male companions whether virgin or not will end up contracting an STD at some point in their string of relationships. Think about it logically for a second. What is the purpose of having reproductive organs? TO reproduce, obviously. They have no other real practical use save for waste the body produces. Though, I guess female relationships are a bit different. If both females do not have an STD there is very little chance of them contracting one. But, again, logically their reproductive organs were not meant for what they do. This is why I think that many people, conservative Christian or not are opposed to homosexual relationships. There is just no logical reason why two homosexuals should be given the same marital rights as a heterosexual. Despite whatever their idea of 'love' is.

In addition, you must remember that one of the reasons there is so much political tension on the subjects of gay rights and abortion is because of the values this country was founded on. To name one in particular (that happens to be found on every piece of our currency), the words "In God We Trust". Gays wanting equal rights and women wanting abortions can expect to face major opposition when they step outside of the values that this nation has held onto since it's conception. It just makes sense.

I know my response has some "What the _____ is he talking about" moments. I'd be happy to try and clarify if you happen to find one.

For the record, my response was:

Dear [Name Withheld]:

Your entire reply is one non sequitur after another. You gesture at a variety of piecemeal arguments but you fail to flesh out a single, coherent thesis. I would ask you to clarify, but your failure to effectively communicate your position is more likely due to your very tenuous grasp of the issue than it is to your poor writing skills. I warmly recommend that you acquaint yourself with the sophisticated versions of the arguments you attempted to replicate, as well some elementary argumentation strategies, before you make any further pass at persuasive writing.

Yours Truly,

Kai

In retrospect, I was far too easy on him.

Insect of the Week: Crowned Slug Caterpillar

2010-04-23T08:51:00.000-07:00

Some day, I'll actually update this segment weekly. Let me distract you from my utter failure as a blogger with a pretty caterpillar:

The species is Isa textula. According to BugGuide, "Larvae are often found on oak, but also eat leaves of many other trees including maple, cherry, basswood, elm, and beech." You'd think such a weird, alien caterpillar would pupate into something interesting. But no, the adult looks like this:

Admittedly, it looks like every other dead moth you've ever found on your porch.

Guest Post: Ex-Gay Christian Shares Story

2010-04-20T18:33:00.000-07:00

This is a guest post by my friend Olivia. She graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in May 2009 with her bachelor's degree in Computational Biology. She is currently pursuing a M.S. in Genetic Epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis, and will be starting medical school in the fall. I asked Olivia to write a guest post for my blog because I wanted to present an alternate point of view from someone whom I admire and respect, despite our disagreements.

From Olivia:

Kai is one of my best friends. In my opinion he’s also a great writer and has plenty of insightful opinions to share with the world so when he asked me to guest write for his blog I was excited and a bit intimidated at the same time. I am not a good writer. I also had no clue what to write about. Luckily for me, Kai’s Facebook wall dropped a pretty good topic in my lap. A couple of weeks ago Kai made the following comment about a web post about an ex-gay Christian’s story:

“Ex-gay Christian shares his story. This is one of the saddest things I've ever read. Hey, next generation: let's not teach our kids to hate themselves for being gay, kay?”

First I want to break down what Kai said. “This is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read.” I’m not sure if Kai meant that the whole story was sad or if the quote was meant to be more narrowly focused on the latter half (“let’s not teach our kids to hate themselves for being gay, kay?”). I don’t think the whole story is sad, but if Kai’s only problem with the story is that the church either purposefully or accidentally teaches kids to hate themselves for being gay, I would completely agree that that is a sad thing. Even if we were to agree that being gay (defined as being attracted to people of the same biological sex) is a sin (which I don’t believe), teaching people to hate themselves for it would not be a healthy or loving way to steer them away from being gay. That said, I’d like to take a closer look at this ex-gay Christian’s story.

To summarize the story (in case you don’t have the patience to actually read the article… it is kind of long), Adam says that he had his first sexual experience with a boy when he was in middle school around the same time that he started looking at pornography. In high school he had a consensual sexual relationship with his cheerleading coach. During his senior year in high school he started to more openly go to gay clubs and he started taking ecstasy. He had issues with his self-image and felt as though no one wanted to be his friend. After graduating high school he had some male Christian friends for the first time and started seeing a councilor. He says that he felt a lot of anger and grief over his loss of innocence but that his life didn’t change much at that point. He tried living as a “straight” male in college for 4 years but he still had romantic feelings for men. After college he landed a great job that paid him well, he found a Christian boyfriend, they went to clubs together and did drugs together. He says that he had everything he thought he wanted but he was miserable. One morning after being out at the clubs all night, Adam and his boyfriend walk into a church for funzies. The pastor of the church walks up to them after the service to say hi and Adam’s boyfriend just blurts out “we just came from the club.” The pastor responds, “I’m glad you’re here.”

Adam says that this was his turning point. He describes the next two years as being the most painful and freeing years of his life during which he stripped “away old habits and desires and [submitted] to the Lord.” He feels that many of his feelings for men were due to long standing problems in his relationship with his father and rejection from boys his age when he was young. Besides returning to the church, Adam also quit doing drugs during those two years. He says that he prayed that God would take away his feelings for other men and that he has slowly seen a change in that area of his life. He says that he is beginning to see women in a different, greater, purer, more beautiful way; though he does still struggle with attraction to men. He says that his goal is to give resources that were valuable to him to other male Christians struggling with attraction to men.I know that summary might look long, but if you take a look at the original article you’ll be grateful.

Okay, so now to simplify things even more, here’s what I see when I read this. Boy has bad relationship with father and other kids. Boy starts using porn and having sexual relationships when he is around the age of 12 or 13. Gym teacher has an illegal and probably psychologically damaging relationship with boy. Boy parties and does illegal damaging drugs. Boy tries to be straight but still ends up with a boyfriend, doing drugs, and feeling miserable. Boy decides to try submitting his life to God, goes through hell, but comes out the other side off of drugs, mending his relationship with his father, and being more confident in himself.

Not once in his story did he say anything about pressure or condemnation from the Christian community. Not once in his story did he mention anyone telling him that he was a bad person. In my opinion, this boy’s problems were not rooted in his feelings towards other men. It was rooted in the fact that he didn’t know how much he was worth as a human being and he didn’t have a clear and healthy picture of his own identity. After “submitting to God” he even admits that his feelings for men aren’t completely gone, yet his quality of life is so much better for many other obvious reasons. I don’t think this is tragic. It’s something to be joyful about.

It might sound cliché because it’s said over and over again, but it is said so often because it is TRUE. Money alone doesn’t satisfy. Someone else’s affections whether homosexual or heterosexual will not satisfy either if you don’t know who you are and you don’t have a good sense of self-worth. It is well recognized that abuse of drugs and alcohol generally began as a way of escaping from something that is difficult. The fact that he doesn’t need that anymore is a good thing. Also, can anyone really say that it is appropriate for a 12 or 13 year old boy to be looking at pornography? Even for adults, pornography can be very damaging to the real relationships that person has. I realize that not every ex-gay or currently gay Christian’s story is not like Adam’s story. I also understand that Adam may be leaving details out of the story. But as for what is presented here, I think we should celebrate rather than being sad about the changes that have occurred in Adam’s life.

Philosophy of Mind: Still Useless

2010-04-20T16:44:00.000-07:00

In January, I posted my initial thoughts about the Philosophy of Mind class I'm taking this semester. I wrote that I thought it was utter bullshit and has no applicability to studies in neurology, psychology, etc. It is now three months later, and my opinion has not changed. Let me illustrate some of my objections.

I recently submitted a paper in that class on the topic of intentionality (I did very well on the paper, in case you think that I'm just griping about a bad grade). Intentional states are mental states that are about something; for example, if I'm thinking about grass, then I am taking an intentional stance toward grass. We read a paper in the class by John Haugeland, who distinguishes between two types of intentionality. He defines derivative intentionality as the "intentionality that something has only by virtue of having it conferred on it by something else that already has it". Words and sentences, for example, have intentionality only insofar as it is conferred upon them by the intentionality of the reader's thoughts. In contrast to derivative intentionality, Haugeland believes there is something that he calls original intentionality. He does not offer a positive account for original intentionality, stating only that "[it] is any intentionality that is not derivative".

In my paper, I argued that, from a pragmatic standpoint, the distinction between derivative and original intentionality is entirely useless. Say we build a computer that runs very sophisticated algorithms. If we're trying to predict how the computer will react to certain information, we could memorize those algorithms and know exactly what output we're going to receive. Or we could treat the computer as if it were a rational human being, and base our predictions on what it is rational for the computer to do. Clearly, the second option is far more practical than the first, even though the predictions are probably not going to be as accurate. So what does it matter that the machine only has derivative intentionality (whatever that is)? We should act as though it has original intentionality, because practically, it doesn't matter what kind of intentionality it actually has.

When I asked that question in my paper, the professor wrote in the margins: "Because we want to know what intentionality consists in?" I understand the substance of his objection: just because something isn't useful doesn't mean that it's not worth studying. But here's the idea that I was trying to get across: arguing about things like intentionality pretty much comes down to making up random shit, and then making up more random shit to substantiate the original random shit, and then condemning other people for not believing the same random shit that you believe. There can be no right or wrong in an argument of this type. It pretty much comes down to personal taste and what seems likely to you as an individual. There isn't any knowing "what intentionality consists in".

It bothers me profoundly that a bunch of liberal arts students think that they can decide difficult questions about the mind by sitting around and talking about it. Don't get me wrong--I think that pure thought (sans experiments, etc.) can solve a lot of important problems. The entire field of mathematics is based on pure thought. But if you're talking about something like the mind, something that can only be understood through how it interacts with the physical environment, then you need to get yourself to a goddamn laboratory and do some goddamn experiments. But I suppose that's just my scientism assuming a pre-theoretical substrate of experience.*

*For similar reasons as those I just explained, I happen to think that continental philosophy is a completely worthless field of study. My background is in analytic philosophy, which is entirely different. Please don't mistake all philosophers for those contie kids. Thank you.

Forced to Freedom?

2010-04-09T17:51:00.000-07:00

Quebec Premier Jean Charest has just drafted legislation that would make it illegal for Muslim women to wear a niqab if they want access to public services. The Premier says the measure will be taken for the reasons of "identification, security, and communication". On the face of it, this may seem like a legitimate concern, but other Canadian territories have successfully found ways to accommodate women in niqabs:

Women can go into an interview room and have an identification photo taken by a female staff member. Or, a picture can be taken in a private location by a female agent. "If there is not a private interview room or a private location, a screen can be erected in order to obscure the photo subject from public view," Bhardwaj said.

And, in the Toronto area, health-care appointments can be made after hours, a system that will soon be extended across the province and will include health cards and driver's licences.

This type of accommodation doesn't seem outrageous to me, so I need further arguments before I support the ban. The other issue the Premier brings up is gender equality:

On Wednesday, St-Pierre said Quebec was a "world leader" when it comes to gender equality, and with Bill 94, "we prove it once again."

Okay, my readers should know by now that I am all about gender equality. But I don't think this is the way to go about it, especially after reading a recent article in my school's newspaper where a Muslim alumna defended the use of the niqab.

Belgasem, 22, was one of several members of the Muslim Student Association who explained to a group of about 60 attendees that most Muslim women cover themselves by choice as a part of their religious beliefs and not as a ploy by men to subjugate them.

...
Reading passages from the Qur’an, Ben-masa called Islam one of the least restrictive religions of women’s freedoms. Before Islam, he said, women in many regions were viewed as property. They were not allowed to inherit the possessions of deceased loved ones, a right that is granted to Muslim women.

The walls of the room were covered posters with pro-Muslim. One said, “According to the Qur’an, men and women are equal before God; women are not blamed for violating the ‘forbidden tree,’” a reference to the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

Alumna Huma Badi said that she willingly follows the Hijab, and that it causes people to see her with respect and not just as a sexual object.

Personally, the headscarf thing isn't something I would promote. But then again, I'm not a Muslim. It's just a piece of cloth to me. But if what we're condemning is sex-specific clothing, then the argument makes no sense at all. Every culture has sex-specific clothing. Should we start banning American women from wearing dresses? Men from wearing ties? You might argue that there's a difference because most of our fashion "laws" aren't based on religious beliefs about the role of men and women, but this argument is obviously false. Dresses have historically been a modesty covering for women. That's not the case now, but if we discard the historic significance, then there goes the argument against the niqabs, too. Modern Muslim women (at least some) obviously don't think the niqab demeans them. If anything, it seems to bolster their self-esteem. Who are we to tell them they're wrong?

She-Males Will Hold Children Hostage in the Classroom!!

2010-04-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

Stupid, bigoted websites are all over the internet. But sometimes, they are just so horrible and ignorant that I have to rant about them. Take this specimen: http://www.endahurtskids.com/

For those of you who don't know, ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) is a bill before Congress right now that would make it illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Many states already have laws that prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation, and a small handful (including Colorado!) also extend protection to gender identity. The passage of this bill would make such discrimination illegal across all 50 states. Cool, right?

Well, according to the Traditional Values Coalition, the authors of the above website:

President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are quietly rushing through legislation (H.R. 3017 & S. 1584) that would actually bring cross-dressing teachers into your child’s classroom. Under the so-called, Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), your children will be trapped in classes taught by drag queens and transgender activists. Students will be indoctrinated that “alternative lifestyles” are no different than traditional lifestyles. Young children will be forced to learn about bizarre sexual fetishes – and you will have no say in the matter.

First of all, dumbass, cross-dressers are not transgender people. Many trans people are perceived as either gay or cross-dressing early in their transition, but they are in fact wearing clothing that is congruent with their gender identity. Cross-dressers, for a variety of reasons, wear clothing associated with the gender they do NOT identify with. Many straight men, for example, wear women's lingerie as a sexual fetish or just because they like the feel of silk against their crotch. They are not, and would not identify as, transgender.

Second, many drag queens are actually cisgender males who engage in cross-dressing as a performance art. If you're trying to ban all drag queens from teaching in the classroom, you're going to need to do a lot more than stop ENDA. You're going to need to keep tabs on every single male teacher and make sure he doesn't do naughty things in his off-time. Also, drag queens aren't going to show up to class in drag. Duh. (Unless they ARE transgender, and then it's not drag.)

As for indoctrinating your children: I think it is both a moral imperative and in the best interest of the state to teach children to respect their fellow human beings. No one is going to try to force them to be gay or transgender. Also, young children will be forced to learn about bizarre sexual fetishes? Wtf??! First, transgenderism is not a sexual fetish (although many people fetishize trans people--but people will fetishize anything). Second, trans teachers aren't going to start bringing in strap-ons and ball-gags and demonstrating their use. Who the hell would be okay with that?

Lastly, the site authors continually refer to trans people as "she-males". If you needed any further proof that they're motivated by their own fear and hatred of people who are different than they are, and not true concern for their children, this is it. There is absolutely no rational reason to oppose ENDA, so they obviously have to resort to misconstruing the issue and using offensive language. Morons.

"Easter" is not PC

2010-04-02T08:04:00.000-07:00

[My friend Olivia and I were discussing various problems with talking to dead people. Note that Olivia is a Christian.]

me: Well, about 80% of Americans thought-talk to a Jewish zombie on a regular basis. This isn't much weirder than that.

Olivia: Jesus would have to be dead when he rose for him to be a zombie. we believe he was alive thus not a zombie

me: Look, he was dead. Then he wasn't. I say zombie.

Olivia: that's not the definition of zombie!

Olivia: I'm very disappointed in you. You don't even know what a zombie is. You watch more zombie movies than me

me: I know what a zombie is. I'm stretching the definition because I don't discriminate against people of other deadness status.

Olivia: that's kind of hard when the definition of zombie includes deadness status

me: Bigot.

Debate rule #1: When you can't win with logic alone, resort to unfounded accusations and loaded language! I learned this from all the lovely people who engage in Facebook debates. Thanks, guys!

Insect of the Week: Insects covered in dew

2010-04-02T07:10:00.001-07:00

My day has totally been made by this amazing photograph:

This is a picture of a sleeping blue dragonfly, covered in dew. There are many more great high-res images over at the Daily Mail. I really, really want a print of some these.

(Via The Daily Dish)

Bone or Else

2010-03-30T17:23:00.000-07:00

Lately, XXXChurch has become one of my favorite sites for learning all the hip new advice about sexuality for the modern Christian. I ran across an interesting article the other day, and thought I'd share.

The article is called Sexless Marriages are Demonic. I'm torn between appreciating the overall message of this piece (i.e. "FUCK MORE") and wondering whether it's just another thinly disguised attempt to make women feel guilty every time they don't want to have sex with their Man. Quote:

God did not say "respect your husband" until it's time for love making. No, he says that you are to do it, period, at all times. When it comes to sex, when you respect your husband it means that you give: "esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person"; "deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment"; "show regard or consideration for"; "an attitude of admiration or esteem"; "courteous regard for people's feelings". To respect your husband is to "adore him"; "be in awe of him"; "regard and connect with him"; "admire, notice and revere him"; "cherish, delight, marvel at, wonder at, and treasure him".

Damn! Just quote that at your woman next time she's getting a bit uppity!

This next quote seems a little douche-baggy to women AND men, as it appears to suggest that men will be happy little puppies as long as the women folk take care of our boners:

Again, I Peter 3:1-3 says that there are wives whose husbands are not keeping the Word of God (may be in his finances, may be in how he manages his time, may be in his attitude, may be in the way he treats you), but you can win him over when you are good to him by responding to his needs.

And finally, because it made me LOL:

Some of you don't even remember the last time you had sex or prayed and you know what? YOU MIGHT AS WELL PUT A WELCOME MAT OUT FOR THE DEVIL TO TAP DANCE ON BECAUSE OF IT.

If you want to keep Satan from taking root in your marriage, it may sound simplistic, but HAVE SEX---soon!!!

At least the last three words are pretty solid advice.

Insect of the Week: Neurothemis terminata

2010-03-26T20:30:00.000-07:00

This week's insect is the lovely neuropteran Neurothemis terminata. From Dragons & Damsels:

This is one of the common red-winged dragonflies that one sees often in drains, small ditches and ponds. There are several species of Neurothemis whose males typically have dark red pigmented wings with some clear (hyaline) areas, usually at the tips. The females however usually have clear wings with some darker markings. The common species are quite similar in appearance and are difficult to identify in the field.N. terminata is common on Borneo, most of Indonesia, the Philippines and less so in Peninsular Malaysia.

UTSC: 50 Reasons People Give For Believing in a God (Part 1)

2010-03-22T20:03:00.000-07:00

Back in January, I posted that I would be starting the Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge, issued by Luke of Common Sense Atheism. I'm now halfway through the first book on the list, 50 Reasons People Give For Believing in a God (Guy Harrison), and am enjoying it very much. Harrison basically goes through a list of reasons people have given him for why they believe in God, and tries to show that none of these reasons are based on real evidence or critical thinking. He operates under the belief that outright antagonism toward religion is not conducive to getting people to reconsider their beliefs, and so the book has a very low-key and respectful tone. Still, he does not hesitate to point out faulty logic or careless thinking, so skeptics need not worry that he's bending over backward to accommodate people of faith. Overall, I would highly recommend it to anyone new to the skeptic's movement or the philosophy of religion in general (though people familiar with either of these areas have probably heard many of these arguments before).
I don't plan to blog through the entire book, but I will mention the arguments I find most compelling or unique and those that I think Harrison needs to develop a bit more.

Insect of the Week: European rhinoceros beetle

2010-03-13T14:21:00.000-08:00

This "weekly" segment is turning into more of a "monthly" thing because I suck at updating. But whatever. This week's insect comes to us from Leon, a grad student at Colorado State University.

This beauty is a European rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes nasicornis), and it's definitely the coolest scarab beetle I've seen yet. Look at that horn! From Absolute Astronomy:

The rhinoceros beetles or rhino cheetle are a subfamily (Dynastinae) of beetles (Coleoptera) in the family of scarab beetles (Scarabaeidae). They are among the largest of beetles, and their common name refers to the characteristic hats borne by the males of most species in the group. The male cheetles use their hats in mating battles against other males.

...

Rhinoceros beetles are popular pets in Asia. They are clean, easy to maintain, and safe to handle. In Asian countries, male beetles are also used for gambling fights since they naturally compete for female beetles with the winner knocking the other off a dog's tail. Rhinoceros beetles are also one of the strongest animals on the planet in relation to their own size. They can lift up to 85000 times their own weight.

EDIT: Apparently the Absolute Astronomy article I linked to is not a very reliable source on this insect. Emma has pointed out that making beetles duel on a dog's tail seems silly, and Anonymous doubts that the rhinoceros beetle can actually lift up to 85,000 times its own weight. I can't find more sources on either of these points, so I'm guessing they're both bullshit. I'm annoyed that there aren't more sources on the rhinoceros beetle on the internet (shame on you, Wikipedia), and it almost makes me want to become an entomologist just to write all this shit somewhere. I'm glad I have critical readers who point this stuff out to me, though. Now if someone could send me a good, verifiable article on the rhinoceros beetle...

Against Human Rights

2010-02-27T16:15:00.000-08:00

Hey, look at my eye-catching and misleading title! I must be a journalist...

Seriously, though, today I'm going to discuss some of my recent thoughts on consequentialism, and why I don't think we need to appeal to a concept of 'human rights' in order to act ethically toward other people.

First, a brief explanation of the topic:

Consequentialism is a position in moral theory which holds that the consequences of a particular action determine the moral value of that action. An action with good consequences is a morally correct action, and an action with bad consequences is morally incorrect. Different consequentialist theories have different criteria for what counts as a "good" or "bad" consequence. The most widely defended version of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which was developed by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century. Utilitarianism holds that the ultimate judge of any action is its tendency to produce a net increase in happiness (or pleasure). For example, lying is acceptable in cases where there are readily apparent benefits for doing so.

Consequentialism is usually defined in opposition to deontology and virtue ethics (together, these are sometimes referred to as the "Big Three" of moral theory). Deontology judges actions based on how well those actions conform to a set of moral rules. The best-known defender of deontology is Immanuel Kant, who developed the idea of the categorical imperative. One formulation of the categorical imperative is as follows: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."* The basic idea is that an immoral action is one which would destroy itself if it were made into a universal rule of action. For example, lying is always immoral because, if everyone lied about everything, that would destroy the very meaning of a lie.

Finally, virtue ethics stipulates that the important element of ethics is not any particular action, but rather the character of the person who performs that action. Hence, a lie is judged by the virtue of the liar. If I tell you that dress looks good on you because I want you to feel good about yourself, then I did the right thing. If I tell you it looks good on you just so you'll stop harping on about the dance tonight, then I did a bad thing. Virtue ethics is largely defunct in modern philosophy, due to the growing doubt that people actually act according to a set of robust character traits. For a brilliant treatment of the psychological problems inherent in virtue ethics, please read John Doris's Lack of Character**.

Although most philosophers believe that the "correct" moral theory is neither deontological nor consequentialist, but some mixture of the two, I am growing more and more convinced that a rational moral system can only be hashed out in terms of consequences. The most contentious side-effect of such a system is the utter destruction of anything we now know as "rights" (human rights, animal rights, etc.).*** The idea behind having a "right" is that there are some things other people should never do to us, regardless of the consequences. Imagine that I'm a jailer, and there is an angry mob outside my door. They are demanding that I kill a certain prisoner in my jail. I happen to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man is innocent, and I also know that if the mob doesn't get what they want, there will be a riot and many more innocent people will be trampled to death. Assume that trying to tell the mob the man is innocent is pointless--they simply don't care. The "obvious" consequentialist answer is that I should kill the prisoner. The deontologist will object that the man has a right to not be killed, especially because he has done nothing wrong, and I can't take away that right regardless of the consequences.

I think most of the people who read this blog would agree that I shouldn't kill the man. I also believe that I shouldn't, but I do not think that I need to (or even should) appeal to the idea of an intrinsic right to come to that conclusion. What is needed, I think, is a better account of the consequences of my actions. The short-term consequences of killing the man are obvious: I save many innocent people at the cost of a single innocent person. But what about the long-term consequences? What would our society be like, if people in positions of authority were allowed to kill innocent people to satisfy the masses? I can imagine that a great number of people would live in fear that they would be the next victim of blind hate. Surely those people must be taken into account, if we're going purely on the consequences of my action.

On the other hand, what if I weren't in a position of authority? What if I were some random Joe who had the keys to the prison cell? Then, I would argue, I should kill the man. What's the difference? The difference is that I'm an independent agent--my actions won't affect the rules of society. I'm not violating a professional ethic, so to speak. There is no worry about future consequences--the only effects that matter are the present ones. There may be other concerns (I'm not psychologically capable of killing the man, e.g.) which affect what I can do, but these don't appear to comment on what I should do.

I've only barely sketched the outline of a theory, but I think the benefits of such a theory are readily apparent. First, it's intuitive (at least to me). I speculate that most people would accept killing the man in the second situation, but not the first. This isn't to say that most people wouldn't find killing the man repugnant, but rather that they would grudgingly accept it as a "necessary evil". Second, it avoids the very complicated business of 'rights'. What are rights? Why do we have them? Who decides what rights we have, and on what authority? Granted, calculating consequences is also often difficult, but (I would argue) not obviously as complicated as an abstract notion of rights. Finally, the theory makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. A moral theory should, I think, conform to what is natural for us. Any theory that demands unnatural and unintuitive actions is unlikely to be adhered to, and thus, pragmatically useless. This is the primary reason I reject both virtue ethics and deontology: virtue ethics makes unfounded claims about human psychology, and deontology demands all manner of unnatural actions.

As a last point, I believe this kind of theory is a form of act consequentialism, as opposed to rule consequentialism, but I will discuss that distinction more in a later post.

*From Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals
**The class I had with John Doris ( "Mind and Morals") while I was at Washington University was the largest determining factor in my decision to concentrate in moral theory.
***There may still be some place in my theory for discussion of 'rights', but the concept would be merely a neat short-cut that ultimately still appeals to consequences. This is not what we generally mean when we refer to rights.

Insect of the Week: Monkey Grasshopper

2010-02-27T16:02:00.000-08:00

This week's insect is a colorful orthopteran of the family Eumastacidae (commonly known as a monkey grasshopper):

From How Stuff Works:

The monkey grasshopper, which lives in tropical rain forests, is famous for its beautiful colors. The monkey ’hopper’s head seems to shine and there are many different colors on its abdomen!

There are over 1,000 different kinds of monkey grasshoppers. Some are mostly green, and these blend in with the colors of their rain forest homes.

Monkey grasshoppers have very short antennae and very long hind legs. Their hind legs are so long that when a monkey ’hopper sits on a leaf, its legs often splay, or spread out, to the sides.

Insect of the Week: Blue Carpenter Bee

2010-02-19T08:12:00.000-08:00

This week's insect (ignoring that I missed a week--again) is a gorgeous hymenopteran from Malaysia:

This beautiful lady is a carpenter bee of the species Xylocopa caerulea. According to this website:

A large bee, reaching slightly more than 23mm. Female is mainly black. The thorax is covered with light blue hairs, making it almost fully blue except for a small black patch in the centre. The first abdominal segment and sides of the abdomen are also lined with similar but finer and more sparse blue hairs. I am not srre of what the male looks like, although he is supposed to be similar but lighter in body colour with long blue hairs on part of his head!
This species is apparently quite widely distributed across Southeast Asia, as well as India and parts of China (Yunnan, Guangxi, Hainan).

Science: i does it rite

2010-02-13T14:07:00.000-08:00

My brother and I have a water cooler in our apartment, and we pay about $40/month to have bottled water delivered to our door. Both of us are willing to swear up and down that water from the cooler is just that much better than tap water. Because it is. It is goddamn tasty. Anyways, last night, my boyfriend Brian made fun of me for spending money on something that comes free from the tap, and said he couldn't tell the difference between cooler water and tap water. Curious to see whether my own preference was mere confirmation bias, I performed the following experiment.

Set-up: I took four equal-sized notecards. I wrote F on two, and T on the other two (in very light pencil, so there would be no chance that I could see the writing through the cards). I taped the cards on the bottom of four identical glasses. I then filled up each glass to the same mark, either with Tap water or Filter water, depending on which notecard was taped to the bottom. I rearranged the glasses a few times and stuck them in the fridge (because water from the cooler is always colder than water from the tap). After a while, I opened the fridge and mixed the glasses around again, on the off chance that I had subconsciously memorized where I had placed the colder glasses. Finally, I took the glasses out, drank from each one, placed my guesses, and then checked the notecards on the bottom.

Result: I could not only distinguish the filtered water from the tap water, it was superbly easy to do so.

Conclusion: Tap water is objectively nasty.

Suck it, Brian. (No, really.)

Note: There are obvious difficulties with performing a rigorous blind study on yourself, but my set-up was good enough to convince myself of the result. I would be more than happy to repeat the experiment under tightly controlled circumstances.

Insect of the Week: Vinegarroon

2010-02-04T11:13:00.000-08:00

This week's Insect isn't an insect at all, but it's not his fault that he has too many legs:

This weird looking critter is a vinegarroon: i.e. an arachnid of the order Thelyphonida. They get their common name from the acid they spray when threatened. It's a mix of acetic and octanoic acid, and smells strongly like vinegar. From Wikipedia:

Vinegarroons are carnivorous, nocturnal hunters feeding mostly on insects and millipedes, but sometimes on worms and slugs. The prey is crushed between special teeth on the inside of the trochanters (the second segment of the leg) of the front legs. They are valuable in controlling the population of roaches and crickets.

Males secrete a sperm sac, which is transferred to the female. Up to 35 eggs are laid in a burrow, within a mucous membrane that preserves moisture. Mothers stay with the eggs and do not eat. The white young that hatch from the eggs climb onto their mother's back and attach themselves there with special suckers. After the first molt they look like miniature vinegarroons, and leave the burrow; the mother dies soon after. The young grow slowly, going through three molts in about three years before reaching adulthood. They live for up to another four years.

I mostly just want to put this guy in a cage with my tarantula and watch them battle it out.

Complicated Atheism

2010-02-03T11:27:00.000-08:00

According to this taxonomy, I'm an

agnostic
positive
broad
unfriendly
open
evangelical
active
non-religious

atheist. Although I'm not certain about "evangelical". I try to persuade people to give up beliefs that I believe are harmful, but I don't have a lot to say to theists who aren't pushing their beliefs on other people (except maybe "What the hell are you getting out of this?"). I'm not sure I would call myself an "unfriendly" atheist either; it kind of turns on how you interpret "justified belief". I'm in the middle of developing my own theory about the ethics of belief, so I'm not yet comfortable making a definitive statement about what kinds of beliefs a person should hold. Overall, though, I think most of the things I say can be interpreted as "unfriendly" toward religion.

How do you measure up?

The Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge: I Accept!

2010-01-30T13:14:00.000-08:00

I follow most of the mainstream atheist blogs (Pharyngula, the Friendly Atheist, etc.), but the blog I most enjoy reading is Common Sense Atheism. Luke, the author, takes a very even-handed approach to religion, and is almost always engaged in one or more debates with well-read and articulate theists. I especially enjoy his criticisms of the New Atheists--not because I always agree with him, but because it is damn hard to find atheists willing to criticize the mainstream icons of the atheist movement. He does it very well, too; I've changed my mind on more than one occasion after reading his thoughts on The God Delusion or a Christopher Hitchens debate.

Anyways, Luke recently posted a reading challenge for both atheists and religious people: The Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge. I'm not stupid enough to accept just any reading challenge, especially not one that will almost certainly take longer than a year, but I've been attempting my own haphazard version of this anyways. It's been difficult, because I honestly don't know what's crap and what isn't, and I end up wasting my time reading shit like Timothy Keller's The Reason For God. (I made it through about five chapters before I wanted to kill myself.) I trust Luke, who is far more well-versed in the philosophy of religion than I am, has chosen books which really represent the best of both sides.

So, I plan to begin this challenge by March 2010, after I finish the four or so books that I'm currently reading. I doubt I'll finish it within a year (there are only 25 books, but some of them are quite long and I'm going to be starting grad school), but I'm going to keep myself accountable by continuing to update this blog with my reflections on the books as I read them. I'm also not going to abandon my own reading list, so who knows how long this will take me. Will I ever read fiction again?

Insect of the Week: Blue Ant

2010-01-30T11:54:00.000-08:00

Yeah, so I know I didn't do an Insect of the Week last week, and this week's is way late (I try to do them on Thursdays), but I never pretended to be a responsible blogger so stop whining and check out this badass mofo:

Despite the name, this female blue ant is actually a wasp of the species Diamma bicolor. Blue Ants are found in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Oz Animals has this description:

Blue Ants are not ants at all but the wingless females of a species of Flower Wasp. The female is has a glossy blue green body with reddish legs. They move across the ground with a rapid restless motion with abdomen raised above the ground. The winged male and is slender and much smaller with more typical wasp appearance. Males have black with white spots on the abdomen. The female wasps paralyse mole crickets as food for their larvae. The female wasp can give a painful sting if disturbed, but they are not commonly encountered by people.

Blue Ants are parasitic wasps and lay their eggs on mole crickets. The female wasp runs over the ground like an ant looking for a mole cricket to parasitise. She paralyses the mole crickets with a sting and lay an egg on it. When the egg hatches, the larva feeds on the cricket.

Between these guys and the funnel-web spiders invading Sydney, I am seriously hankering to move to Australia.

...what? >_>

Philosophy of Mind: Take One

2010-01-20T18:23:00.000-08:00

Although I have a degree in philosophy, all of my philosophical work to this point has focused on the areas of philosophy that seem, you know, useful (i.e. logic, moral and political philosophy, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of religion). I have avoided classes in epistemology and metaphysics because frankly, I can't see the point. Sure, we could all be confused little monads bumbling around knocking into each other. On the other hand, there is important shit to think about, like our moral obligations to the starving children in Africa. (I'm willing to be convinced that fields like metaphysics and epistemology are also important...I just haven't seen it yet.)

Which leads me to my Philosophy of Mind class. I'm writing this post before I have any substantial experience in this field for a reason. I want to record my preconceptions about the class and the study, and then compare these thoughts to what I think at the end of this semester. Initially, I think it's bullshit. The first question the professor asked us when we walked in was, "Why study philosophy of mind? Why not just work in cognitive science?" My unstated response was, "Good fucking point. I don't know." Other people in the class, clearly assuming that there is a point to studying the philosophy of mind, argued that this field can provide us with answers that cognitive science can't. The responses I remember are that cognitive science is too mechanical and that it is inherently based in rationality. Well...DUH. I would certainly hope so. If the philosophy of mind can only provide us with irrational, non-mechanical answers (whatever those are), then frankly, it's as much bullshit as I think it is. I can't imagine learning anything useful about the mind (which I believe can be reduced to mere physical processes in the brain) sitting around and talking with a group of people who have never performed any clinical research in psychology or neurology. I just can't.

That's where I stand now; I'll keep recording my thoughts until the end of the semester, and then look back and compare.

Now Blogging at Rational Alchemy

2010-01-20T18:03:00.000-08:00

Looking back through my archive, I'm surprised to find that I have never linked to the Rational Alchemy website (and a little bit embarrassed, because my boyfriend produces the Rational Alchemy podcast and blog). Rational Alchemy is a weekly radio show/podcast about various topics in skepticism, ranging from alternative medicine to UFO sightings. You can hear the show live on Saturdays at 11:00pm MST at the KRFC website, or download the podcast from iTunes.

I've been on the show a few times, but my radio presence is awkward at best. Brian (my boyfriend) recently offered to add me to the author list on the blog, and I'm jumping at the chance to contribute to this cool project without having to stutter on the air. I will still be maintaining this blog independently, so there won't be any overlapping content. Head over to the site, add the blog to your RSS feed, and tune in on Saturday evenings for fun skeptical conversation!

Insect of the Week: Children's Stick Insect

2010-01-14T12:06:00.000-08:00

This female Children's Stick Insect (Tropidoderus childrenii) was found in an outdoor swimming pool in Sydney, Australia. Oz Animals has the following description:

Children’s Stick Insect is a medium sized stick insect. Females are larger and bulkier than males, and usually green, but can also be pinkish or cream. The wings are yellowish with bright patches of yellow and blue at the base. Males are slender and light reddish brown. Both males and both the males and females have two pairs of wings. Males are strong fliers, but females are too bulky to fly well. They rely on camouflage to avoid predators. When threatened, Children’s Stick Insect will spread its wings showing the yellow and blue markings. Nymphs have a yellow stripe running along the length of the body. When at rest, the nymphs will align themselves on the leaf so yellow stripe aligns with the leaf midvein.

Isn't she beautiful?

Missing the Point

2010-01-14T10:47:00.000-08:00

I just ran across the Index to Creationist Claims, a website which archives all of the main arguments made by creationists, as well as the standard rebuttals to those arguments. Apparently this archive is also now available as an iPhone and Blackberry app, so you can rebut any creationist claim from the comfort of wherever-you-happen-to-be. You know what? This website and application seriously annoy me. I would go so far as to say that they offend me. (Hey, look, I'm disagreeing with PZ. I have a personality!) The skeptic's movement should be promoting critical thinking and independent research. We need to teach people how to think and argue, not what to think and argue. If any clown can scroll to the appropriate claim and read off a stock answer, that's missing the whole point. That's not skepticism. That's mindlessly rehearsing someone else's argument--exactly what the creationists themselves do. If you can't rebut a creationist argument, get your ass on a computer and read all the source material (for both sides) for yourself. Thorougly. And while you're reading, don't just look for convincing bits of information to throw back at your opponent: criticize and pick through it until you've found the most defensible position you possibly can--even if it's not the one you want. Remember: true skepticism admits no dogma. Skeptics must be willing to change their minds if presented with better information. Furthermore, you don't have to defeat every creationist claim in order to have a valid position. I can admit that pain and suffering are compatible with an all-loving, all-powerful god without admitting that such a god exists. I can even admit that such a god exists without admitting that we should worship him/her/it! Argument should have nuance. You don't have to agree with every mainstream atheist (hell, they don't even all agree with each other). Find your own position, and keep questioning it. That's the only way a skeptic can really embrace all the values the skeptic's movement promotes. Nothing is sacred, not even atheism.

Spring Schedule

2010-01-11T15:14:00.000-08:00

I'm now entering my ninth semester in college--and strangely, I still enjoy school. I have a handful of fun classes lined up this semester:

PHIL 666 Science and Ethics (Apparently the call number is deliberate--this should be fun!)
PHIL 375 Science and Religion
PHIL 350 Social and Political Philosophy (This will mark the fourth class I've had with that exact same title...)
PHIL 438 Philosophy of Mind (I have a degree in Philosophy, and I've never taken a Philosophy of Mind class. How did that happen? I swear to God, if I have to read Descartes one more goddamn time, I'll just kill myself. Straight up.)
MATH 366 Abstract Algebra (I don't even know what this class is about. Heh.)

Classes start the 19th! W00t!

What Do You Do...

2010-01-11T10:40:00.001-08:00

...when your hero follows you on Twitter? Some of you may know that I have an undying love for The Bloggess, a celebrity humor blogger who happens to be the funniest fucking person on the face of the planet. She has a sex column and an advice column in addition to her main blog, and holy crap, the woman can poop humor. I shit you not. So you can understand why I almost had a heart attack when I found this in my inbox this morning:

FLAIL FLAIL FLAIL. This is either awesome, or the worst thing ever. Probably the latter. She'll realize what a humorless dumbass I am, stop following me, and then I'll want to kill myself because I was rejected by The Bloggess. FML.

(But seriously, y'all, The Bloggess is following me. Yaaaaah.)

Link Dump

2010-01-07T17:26:00.000-08:00

Because I'm too lazy to finish the follow-up post to this post, I'm just throwing some interesting links up for your entertainment and enlightenment.

Monkey porn! Scientific American reports that macaque monkeys will sacrifice juice rewards in order to look at lady monkey bottoms. Smart monkeys.
12-year-old martyrs get virgins too. Wait, what? Seriously? (Via The Friendly Atheist)
Gender gap in math ability. All evidence says it's social, where it exists at all. Who would have guessed? (Thanks, Kaity!)
Beyond the X and Y chromosomes. Scientists find a single gene that is responsible for the growth of secondary sex characteristics. This discovery may revolutionize sex-reassignment therapy.

Happy Thursday!

Introducing: Insect of the Week

2010-01-06T13:05:00.000-08:00

I've long thought that I should, like many other bloggers, have a themed weekly post. The topic of such a post has escaped me until just moments ago when inspiration thwacked me over the skull and demanded I do the obvious. Oh, right. Bugs. Buuuuuugs. Few things make me squeal with girlish delight, but small monsters with many legs and mean-looking mandibles definitely do. (What? What? Some people juggle geese!)

So without further ado, I present this week's Insect of the Week. (And although I'm calling it Insect of the Week, I'll probably throw in the occasional non-insect arthropod, because, as my boyfriend says, "They're all pretty much just bugs". And bugs are awesome.)

Today's insect comes to us from my friend Emma. She took this picture in early July 2008, in the Vietnam city Ho Chi Minh. After scratching my head and consulting my notes from my last entomology class, I tentatively identified it as a beetle from the family Cerambycidae (long-horn beetle). Knowing my identification skills are still woefully inadequate, I also sent it to What's That Bug, a phenomenally geeky website that identified this beetle to species in less than a day. It is indeed a cerambycid (go me!): Pachyteria dimidiata, the Mimusop Stem Borer. Karl from What's That Bug said the following:

This looks like Pachyteria dimidiata (Cerambycinae: Callichromatini), found throughout tropical and sub-tropical Asia from Iran to Borneo. In Thailand it is considered a wood boring pest on fruit and ornamental trees, particularly the Iron Wood Tree (Mimusops elengi); in fact the common name there appears to be the Mimusop Stem Borer. You can find another photo of this beetle (also from Vietnam) on WTB at: http://www.whatsthatbug.com/2009/08/01/longicorn-from-viet-nam-pachyteria-dimidiata/

Thanks, Karl and Emma!

'Whorish Face': WBC parodies Lady Gaga

2010-01-05T19:34:00.000-08:00

I can't help it. I laughed my ass off at this ridiculous and off-key parody of Lady Gaga's "Poker Face", performed by the goofball members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Lady "Gay-gay" apparently approves of homosexuality, so you can guess why the WBC hates her. She's also a whore because, you know, she dances the sexy dance.

@LadyGaga "Poker Face" parody by WBC is done! Lyrics: http://tiny.cc/LGL2 Music: sound bite

As far as I can tell, these are the lyrics (I asked @meganphelps for a transcript on Twitter, but I don't think I'll get one):

Verse 1:
Let's go!
You want to strut like you're unique but baby please
Monster Lady "Gay-gay", show your teeth, this is all me
(God hates you!)
Fake love substitution is your game, you're just a fraud
But any half-wit sees your hate for fans and for your God

Chorus:
(Oh, oh oh oh oh. Oh oh oh oh oh oh.)
You pissed off God, you'll see what He's got
(Oh, oh oh oh oh. Oh oh oh oh oh oh.)
You pissed off God, you'll see what He's got

You ain't got, you ain't got, no you ain't got no poker face
(Show your filth to everybody!)
You just got, you just got, yeah you just got your whorish face
(Show your filth to everybody!)
N-n-nuh poker face, n-nuh poker face.

Verse 2:
You want to lie to them, in hell you will all be
"A little fire is so fun when you're with me"
(God hates you!)
Russian roulette is what you're playing, silly clod
But every chamber's loaded when you're playing with your God

Verse 3:
You can't tell them that you love them
You despise them and you're bluffin'
You got nothin' so you're lyin'
You're just hatin' on the truth

Just like a freak out playin' dress up
So your costumes, they can't help you
I've got promises, promises
Your destruction's so marvelous

I personally like it. It's like those nature tapes that record hyenas in their natural habitat. Only these are like, autistic hyenas. On crack.

Obama Appoints Transgender Employee

2010-01-05T08:26:00.000-08:00

Although Obama has been distressingly lax when it comes to LGBT awareness and advancement, I was heartened to hear that he recently appointed Amanda Simpson as Senior Technical Adviser to the Department of Commerce. Simpson, a transgender woman from Tuscon, currently serves on the Board of Directors for the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). She also holds degrees in Physics, Engineering, and Business Administration. Simpson may be the first ever transgender presidential appointee and was recognized by the YWCA as one of their "Women on the Move". She's obviously very qualified for this post, and I'm excited to see Obama take a more active role in promoting equal opportunities for gay and transgender people. Let's hope there's more to come!

A Brief Discussion on Speciesism

2010-01-04T15:14:00.000-08:00

For those who don't know and can't guess, speciesism is the practice of assigning greater value to members of one's own species based on morally irrelevant differences. Someone who extends full moral consideration to every member of their own species, regardless of ability or handicap, and denies the same considerations to any other species is a speciesist. Just as racists or sexists draw the boundary of superiority exactly parallel to their own race or sex, speciesists claim (consciously or not) that every human* has rights no other animal does, simply by virtue of being human.

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to giggle or look smug when I accuse them of being a speciesist. (And I do this quite often, because most people are speciesists.) They think I'm kidding, or being a bit silly. Or even that I'm being outrageous, because racism and sexism are nothing like speciesism and it's offensive to human dignity to suggest they are. I disagree. In fact, alarm bells should be ringing in your head right now. It was once thought silly to believe that all humans deserve equal consideration, even *gasp* women. When Mary Wollstonecraft (an 18th century feminist philosopher) published her Vindication of the Rights of Women, a satirical work titled Vindication of the Rights of Brutes was anonymously published soon thereafter. The author tried to show that all of Wollstonecraft's arguments could apply to animals as well, and since it's manifestly absurd to think that animals have rights, it's just as silly to think that women have rights.

Fortunately, we know better now. But that doesn't mean that we've identified and trashed all of our old biases. We should be the most careful of bias that is so embedded in our collective psyche that the majority of us won't even admit the possibility that it's there. Hence, speciesism. Notice that this isn't a full defense of animal rights, it's an appeal to think: after very careful consideration, you may try to argue that speciesism doesn't exist, or that it's morally acceptable (although I seriously doubt you'll come to this conclusion). Fine. Talk to me then. In the meantime, recognize the danger inherent in discarding the interests of other sentient beings out of hand.

For a thorough and eye-opening discussion of speciesism, read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.

*The term assumes certain mental capacities for considering the interests of other species; thus, only humans can be speciesists.

Link Archive

2009-12-26T15:18:00.001-08:00

I am creating a link archive, both for the convenience of readers who might see a link to an interesting article on this blog but don't want to slog through months of posts to find it, and for me, because I often stumble across interesting articles elsewhere and then never find them again. I'm sure I'll find a better way of doing this eventually, but for now, I'm just going to update this post whenever I add new links. Enjoy.

Humanism
Why I am not a Humanist by Nigel Sinnott
Why I am not a Humanist by Luke Muehlhauser

Animal Rights
Sentience and Pain in Invertebrates by the Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences

LGBT
"Majority" does not equal "Morality" by Emma

My friends are the BEST. Exhibit A.

2009-12-04T11:00:00.000-08:00

My friend Emma just wrote a brilliant post in response to New York's recent decision to deny equal rights to gay citizens. She argues, as many other people have, that a majority should not be able to vote on the rights of a minority. This is the most articulate and passionate defense of that argument that I've ever read, and you should all head right over to her blog and read it yourselves. My favorite part:

I hate that the battle for gay rights has to be fought in senate halls and courtrooms at all. It's ridiculous that civil rights groups have to be on the offense in a fight for nothing more than equality. These are issues that shouldn't be legislated at all, and they are certainly not issues that the majority is qualified to vote on. I hate that people who claim to defend 'freedom' want it to be clear that they're only defending freedom as they define it--and their definition says, "My freedom depends on restricting your freedom."

Freedom has to be universal in order for it to be freedom. Gay marriage does not take any freedom away from straight couples, or from the institution of marriage itself* (certainly it can't damage it anymore than our 50% divorce rate does). And for the love of God, just because more than 50% of people who voted think something does not make it RIGHT.

You rock, Emma.

Boy Won't Pledge Allegiance--Smarter Than The Entire Republican Party, Combined

2009-11-16T20:40:00.000-08:00

A 10-year-old boy from Arkansas refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance in class. And no, it's not because of the "under God" phrase; rather, this remarkable youth believes the stanza "with liberty and justice for all" does not describe the actual state of affairs in America today. Specifically, Will Philips (who aspires to be a lawyer) claims that there will not be justice for all in America until gays and lesbians are allowed to marry.

I admit, when I first read this story, I thought Will had probably received a lot of coaching from his parents, and that he was just another kid spouting out beliefs he doesn't understand. But watch the video. He knows exactly what he believes, and he speaks for himself. Will continued to sit through the Pledge despite taunts from his classmates, who called him a "gaywad", and repeatedly reminded his exasperated teacher of his right to do so. His teacher wouldn't relent, so young Will (brilliant asshole in the making) told her, 'very solemnly, with a little bit of malice',* "Ma'am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge."

Way to go, Will. You have proved yourself far more mature and intelligent than many adults I know.

*In the CNN interview, he describes the exchange with these exact words.

Sex With Zombies

2009-10-23T16:59:00.000-07:00

If you are still clinging to the hope that this blog will ever be super informative and intelligent, you can give up now. But if you like zombies and/or sex, you might want to stay around for today's topic: zombie sex. Obviously, this is a very broad subject that could (and should) span entire classes, but I'm only going to hit the high points.

Definitions: Zombie Sex vs. Necrophilia

I'm putting this section here because I don't think having sex with zombies makes you a necrophiliac. Think about it. Necrophiliacs like to have sex with dead people. And okay, zombies are dead, but they're different from most dead people because they move around and try to eat you and shit. I'm not a necrophiliac, but I think the compelling part of having sex with a corpse is that it doesn't move. It just sits there, staring past you with its dead eyes, and lets you gratify yourself within its cold, dry orifices.

...okay, ew. But you get the point. We need a new term for people who like having sex with zombies. Suggestions are welcome.

Safety

This seems to go without saying, but readers should be reminded that most zombies aren't looking for a good lay, they're trying to eat your fucking face. Plan your deviance accordingly.

First, you should know what kind of zombie you're dealing with. Some zombies need to actually pierce your skin or even kill you in order to turn you, while others can do it through simple fluid transfer. You have a lot more leeway with the first kind, but don't rule out the second! With proper precautions, you can have safe sex with all manner of undead things.

Second, putting anything in a zombie's mouth is not a good idea. Zombies use their teeth--a lot. Now, it has been suggested to me that you could pulverize your zombie lover's jaw and remove all the teeth, but I'm guessing it will still be able to crush your junk with its gums. Maybe you could devise some sort of mouthpiece that prevents the zombie from clenching its jaw shut all the way. That's too complicated for me, but if that's your thing, good luck!

Third...I was going to write something about how you could ride bareback because most STDs wouldn't survive in a corpse, but on second thought, some of them probably would. Maybe the bacterial STDs wouldn't be a problem--I really have no idea. Anyone with even a marginally acceptable background in biology want to weigh in?*

Ethics

I don't care what Dan Savage says: Fucking zombies is completely ethical. They don't feel pain, for one. You can run over their face with a fucking lawnmower and they won't give a shit. And consent? They're trying to rip out your throat with their teeth--I think you can justify any manhandling as self-defense. Not like there's anyone around to take you to court anyways.

Conclusion

Zombie sex can be safe (relative to say, chainsaw sex), educational (there are some mistakes you won't make twice), and fun for the whole family (alive or otherwise)! So when the zombie apocalypse strikes, don't give up on your sex life. There will be plenty of lovely undead girls and boys who can't wait to get you into bed (to, you know, fucking eat you, but it's a start).

*My science education in elementary school consisted entirely of Kent Hovind videos. I wish I were kidding.

Your MOM is SUPERGAY

2009-10-23T11:37:00.001-07:00

While I was uploading the picture in my last post from the library's Public Temp folder, I found a Word document labeled "SUPERGAY". Naturally, I opened it immediately. It turned out to be a response paper for a 400-level History class. A very bad response paper. Clearly, this student (Casey W.) thinks that only SUPERGAY people could possibly understand all the nuance and subtlety in Elizabeth Perry's "Strikes Among Shanghai Silk Weavers". Sucks to be straight, Casey!

P.S. It is possibly not the best idea to write your full name on a public document and then give it a stupid label that will piss off a good 10% of the people who actually see it. Moron.

Reuters Slams Workers

2009-10-23T11:19:00.000-07:00

From Reuters.com:

U.S. blue collar army chases few vacancies

By Ed Stoddard - Analysis

DALLAS (Reuters) - For every open construction job in America, there are more than 20 people lining up to apply.

Few statistics illustrate the gravity of the U.S. recession as clearly as the yawning gap between job seekers and vacancies, highlighting the struggle President Barack Obama has had to contain job losses since he took over in January.

Sad. Yet...here's the picture accompanying this story:

Reuters, you seriously couldn't have photographed a sign made by someone who DID finish high school? Making all blue collar workers look like illiterate morons is hardly the best way to elicit sympathy for their plight. I'm just saying.

...on the other hand, maybe this is a subtle critique of a country where it's easier and more practical to enter the workforce than it is to finish college. But I kinda doubt it.

Analogy FAIL

2009-10-19T16:17:00.000-07:00

Apparently we can't go a week without seeing some religious nutjob on campus. I think if this unwritten law is ever violated, the university will crumble to the ground under the weight of its own immorality...or something. Anyway, some guy called Brother Tom showed up today, and he was preaching on the Plaza for a good five hours or more*. He wasn't quite as fun as Brother Matt because he didn't call anyone a "whoremonger" or a "sodomite-ess" (Brother Matt's own term for a lesbian), but he did say one thing that was fucking hilarious. Apparently no one else thought so because they all kind of looked at me weird when I laughed my ass off. SCREW YOU GUYS.

But seriously, I'm not crazy. He was talking about pre-marital sex, which is already funny because the entire time he's condemning everyone for doing it, we're all pretty much just looking annoyed because we're listening to him instead of doing it more. But it was even better because he used the weirdest fucking analogy in the history of ever. He was like, "Having sex before marriage is like using the same piece of duct tape over and over again. After a while, the tape just loses its stickiness. But if you wait for marriage, you'll still have plenty of stickiness left for your spouse."

........

LOL??

Well, I had a good laugh. I'm immature like that. Stop judging me.

*Does anyone know what these guys DO for a living? Do they have their own congregations, and then glide by on the tithe money? Or do they work the night shift at McDonald's? Or do they run around in masks after dark mugging atheists? I really want to know. I think the last option would explain a lot.

Insufficient Insulin Levels May Trigger Grammar Fail

2009-10-15T15:28:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had one of those days where every time you reach into your pockets, you pull out another Reese's Peanut Butter Cup? Well, I have. Seriously. I was at the coffee cart today getting a tea (in yet another futile attempt to wean myself off caffeine), and the guy ahead of me ordered a white chocolate mocha caramel fudge something or other--possibly the most decadent and expensive item on the menu--but the barista made it wrong and he didn't want it, so he gave it to me. YEAH NO SHIT. The barista even piled whipped cream on it for me, even though she totally didn't have to.

But I'm actually happy for reasons completely unrelated to my pancreas failing as a result of drinking that entire fudge-y monstrosity (although that was fun too).

To make a short story even shorter:

I'm seeing someone.

I obviously like him a lot.

And last night was really, really awesome.

PEE. ESS. The grammar in this post is possibly quite bad. Sorry about that.

PEE. ESS. ESS. ...actually, no I'm not. You're just angry because your life is average. Grow up.

Mandatory Sex Parties

2009-10-14T13:05:00.000-07:00

I think they're a good idea. So does Allie. But apparently there isn't any information on the internet about mandatory sex parties, so Allie's taking initiative and spreading the word. You can help! Blog about it, start a website, or hell, just say it on the internet whenever/wherever you have the chance. Google WILL notice eventually.

Activism is AWESOME.

(via Hyperbole-And-A-Half)

P.S. Mandatory sex parties.

??lolcoffee

2009-10-14T11:59:00.000-07:00

Josiah: It'd mean something to me for you to hit yourself in the face with a ball-peen hammer.

me: Haha, you said "peen"...us.

Josiah: ...Nice. Only that's not how you spell it.

me: Neither is "peen". >(

You fucked up first.

Josiah: OMFG.

me: ^__^?

Josiah: I can't talk to you right now.

me: LOL WHY?

Published!

2009-10-13T15:23:00.001-07:00

Yeah, so that last post was uncharacteristically emo. Sorry. I'm all better now; turns out it was just caffeine withdrawal exaggerated by a complete fucking lack of sleep. Four large coffees later, and I'm GOLDEN.

ALSO. The article I wrote for the Collegian got published, and I re-pasted it here for your enjoyment. They fucked with the grammar, so try to sort of speed read through all the bad parts. Some of the minor errors are mine, but you can blame those on the Collegian too, if you want. I do.

On Thursday night, the Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU) student group at CSU hosted a lecture by Dr. Alan Scholes, who holds a PhD in Theology and Personality from the Claremont School of Theology.

CRU advertised the event with posters bearing the name of Dr. Scholes and the heading, "Why Does God Allow Pain & Suffering?" I personally identify as an atheist; however, I am interested in discussing issues of faith with people from a variety of religious backgrounds.

So, with an open mind, some trepidation, and a notebook in my hand, I entered the lecture hall. To my surprise and discomfort, the event began with a full half-hour of praise music, led by a live student band.

The advertisements had led me to believe that a leading academic would be giving a scholarly lecture on a philosophical topic; instead, I found myself in the middle of a Christian youth concert. It was quite a novel form of begging the question.

If the introduction was surprising, the presentation itself was nothing short of jaw-dropping. Dr. Scholes outlined three major world views - Buddhism, atheism/naturalism and Christian theism - and then proceeded to describe how each of them "deals with" the problem of evil.

He gave Buddhism and atheism a perfunctory and entirely inadequate description; what he did, in fact, was show clips from the popular TV shows "Heroes" and "E.R." and explained how different characters in the show represent these two world views.

Naturally, I found this appalling - it would be like an atheist playing clips from Monty Python's "Life of Brian" and claiming those characters represent modern Christians. Dr. Scholes then jumped right into Christian theism and managed to explain away the problem of evil (about which entire courses have been taught) in a single, unqualified sentence. "Pain, suffering and evil are the uncoerced choice of those who've been given the gift of genuine moral freedom," he pronounced, with the air of someone who has just made an irrefutable argument.

I waited for a more detailed explanation, but it did not come. He did mention one potential objection: Why couldn't God create people who would always freely choose to follow him? His utter failure to answer the question came in the form of a false analogy - an anecdote which illustrated a clearly coerced action, rather than a freely chosen one.

He then repeated his unsubstantiated thesis and ended the lecture. The entire event showed an arrant disregard for scholarly discourse; it was, in effect, a self-congratulatory exercise accomplished through a stunning display of intellectual laziness.

While I recognize that CRU has a vested interest in inviting speakers who defend their beliefs, it is to be hoped that students will recognize this sort of deeply flawed argumentation and reject it, even if they ultimately agree with the position being presented.

Also, I got a letter from some CRU officer expressing her apologies for this god-awful (LOL) event. She said she hopes I don't judge all of CRU by this one incident. It was a nice letter. I LOL'd. And then I wrote back and nicely said I didn't, but I judge them for other things. Mostly being Christian.

EDIT: Okay, I didn't say I judge her for being Christian. I'm actually way nice to (nice) Christians when we're talking face-to-face. Partly because I remember being a Christian, and I might never have changed my mind if every atheist I met was an asshole. Also because I'm nice.

argh

2009-10-11T13:34:00.000-07:00

I need to keep this updated more, I really do, but life is so fucking frustrating sometimes. For many different reasons, I'm feeling myself slipping back into the state I was in my sophomore year of college--which is not a good place to be. I've worked really hard to escape that frame of mind, and I've come a long way. I don't want to go back.

I know this is all pretty vague, but I don't care to go into specifics. Basically, I think I'm going to have to confront some old demons and reopen old wounds, and I frankly don't look forward to that.

In other news, I've written a letter to the student newspaper about a Campus Crusade for Christ event. If it gets published, I'll post it here. I lost my copy of the text.

One More Thing

2009-09-25T10:45:00.000-07:00

Oh, and you know that essay I was writing? IT WAS FULL OF WIN. KNOW WHY? Cuz I totally managed to slip a Douglas Adams reference into a paper about an ectoparasitic isopod of the family Cymothodiae! My talents are totally underrated.

LIFT

2009-09-25T10:33:00.000-07:00

This semester I've been working with some other folks to start up a skeptic student's group at CSU. We've recently been registered, under the name Leaders in Free Thought (LIFT). So far, we've had two meetings, and no events, but that's all going to change pretty soon. KNOW WHY? YEAH. Cuz I'm the fucking awesome new Event Coordinator. GO ME.

So right now, I'm planning the following events:

Blasphemy Day International at CSU, Sept. 30th, 10am-3pm
Screening of Monty Python's Life of Brian, Sept. 30th, 6pm-8pm (fun blasphemous movie!)
Lecture by visiting professor Victor Stenger (author of The New Atheism and God: The Failed Hypothesis), either early Oct. or Nov.
Possibly some educational thing about safe sex in mid-October
Cans Around the Oval: a campus-wide canned food drive, sometime soon (I really should look up the date x___X)

On top of school and work, that's a lot of planning. Jebus. I have so much to do today. And I have a GRE practice test tomorrow at 9am because I'm also applying for grad. school (and law school--yes, at the same time) and I'm still on four hours of sleep from studying for a test I had today, and also finishing an essay, also due today. Someone save me.

New Moon--It's Coming

2009-09-16T10:46:00.001-07:00

Trailers for New Moon are up, and it looks unimaginably bad! I haven't read the books, and never will, but I know far more about them than anyone should, because dammit, curiosity is an admirable trait. Sometimes.

I'm totally watching this in theaters. YAY. You may say something about encouraging the industry to keep pumping out crap movies, BUT WHATEVS. I must witness this debacle and pass the story on to future generations! Now I need someone to go with, but all the friends I'd want to invite care more about their own mental health than my amusement. Damn them all.

On another note entirely, I've added my brother Joe to the author list of this blog. He'll (hopefully) post an introduction soon. I claim no responsibility for anything he says here because leik, I'm not his keeper. But be ye fair warned...he leaves no survivors.

Frackin' Hilarious Stuff

2009-09-15T19:25:00.000-07:00

I have two tests this week, tomorrow and the day after, that I should TOTALLY BE STUDYING FOR, but I'm junked up on caffeine SO LEIK I CAN'T EVEN SEE MY COMPUTER.

So here's some hilarious shit.

Don'tEvenReply.com
TheBloggess.com (How did I not know of her before?!)
Twilight Review (via The Bloggess)

About Frackin' Time

2009-09-10T18:35:00.000-07:00

Some of you who aren't science geeks may not know anything about Alan Turing (b. 1912). He was pretty much the father of computer science, as well as a brilliant mathematician and logician. He's dead now. He took his own life. He wasn't mentally ill, or in chronic pain, or seeking attention: he was just gay. The British government prosecuted Turing for this heinous crime in 1952, and gave him the choice to either go to prison or take female hormones (and thereby chemically castrate himself). Tragically (but understandably), he chose option 3: suicide. This was just fifty-seven years ago. Anyone who thinks we're way beyond this sort of miserable bigotry is sorely mistaken. Anyways, the British government has finally apologized to Turing. Here's the full text of the statement made by Gordon Brown:

2009 has been a year of deep reflection - a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain’s fight against the darkness of dictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.

Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ - in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence - and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison - was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.

Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can’t put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.

I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.

But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate - by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices - that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.

So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.

(Via Pharyngula)

Skepticism is Not Faith

2009-09-09T13:11:00.000-07:00

I recently started a Facebook discussion group called Theists, Deists, and Infidels. I wanted to make a place for me and my friends to get together and discuss different books about religion (written by both believers and nonbelievers). Right now we're reading The Reason For God, by Timothy Keller. I have to say, I'm not at all impressed with the book. Keller's argumentation is flimsy, and he makes huge, overarching claims that are impossible to verify (more on those later). But possibly the most annoying argument he makes is that skepticism is just as faith-based as religion. Since I have class in like, four minutes, I'm just going to post the response I made on the discussion board.

I think Keller fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be a true skeptic. He says that "skeptics must learn to look for a type of faith hidden within their reasoning" and that "every doubt...is based on a leap of faith" (xvii). Unless Keller and I are talking about different conceptions of "faith", he is entirely mistaken when he says that skepticism is as much based on faith as is religion. Faith, to me (and I daresay, to most people), is belief without proof. You have faith that God exists and somehow influences the world, but you can't prove it. Skepticism is just the rejection of belief without proof, and therefore, the rejection of faith.

Keller responds to the above objection by saying that skeptics have faith that there is no God, and that they can't justify this belief to people who don't share their views (xviii). No. No no no. Skeptics withhold judgment until definitive evidence comes to light. Show us God, and we'll believe. Otherwise, we'll work under the assumption he's not there. Like I said in my introduction, no marginally intelligent atheist would claim that there is certainly no God. I, and many other atheists, merely assert that there is insufficient evidence for any God, much less the specific entity(ies) portrayed in the Christian Bible. Many of us go a step further and say that there is very probably no God. Even this stronger claim, however, is not based on faith.

I'll illustrate this point with a specific example. Think of the Flat Earth Society. These people honestly think that the Earth is flat, and claim that you can't prove they're wrong. Show them evidence disproving their idea, and they have a response. The moon landing was faked. Space photographs are faked. The horizon only appears to bend because of "bendy light" (I'm not kidding here). The "edge" of the world is guarded by government operatives so no one can discover the truth. They can answer any challenge! So do you believe them? No, of course not! Why? Because that's insane! The theory raises more questions than it answers! It's needlessly complicated! Ockham rolls in his grave at the mere suggestion.

When skeptics say "there probably is no God", they're responding as any reasonable person would to the Flat Earth Hypothesis. The "evidence" presented by the Flat Earthers is insubstantial and obviously slanted, as well as closed to scientific investigation (you can't test any of their assertions). So it's useless to assume the earth is flat and all the scientific evidence is faked, because you can't do anything with that assertion. Skepticism is no more "faith-based" than rejecting the Flat Earth Hypothesis. Keller has that completely wrong.

In other words, Science is Real!

People believe this?

2009-08-28T11:44:00.001-07:00

My brother Jesi (introduced here for the first time--some day I'll post a bit about my family--Happy Birthday, Jesi!) sent me a Facebook invitation to watch this video through the Facebook Clauses application. For some reason, I couldn't post a comment about it on the Causes site. God must have stopped the comment from going through. Anyways, I ended up posting on the YouTube video, and I'm just going to copy/paste what I said there:

I'm going to go for option #3: Spread this video around and explain why it's complete and utter bullshit.

First, no professor at any accredited college could act anything like this. He or she would be fired. Also, no philosophy professor with any kind of real degree would act like this even if she were allowed. Philosophy is about raising questions, not making absurd pronouncements and then mocking anyone who disagrees.

Second, no marginally intelligent atheist would ever claim that God cannot possibly exist. That's ridiculous. Many will say that God almost certainly does not exist, but that's a far cry from claiming that there is absolutely no chance that he does.

This story should be taken with a large helping of salt. It doesn't help the Christian cause to believe everything anyone says on an unregulated YouTube video. Seriously. You wonder why we make fun of you.

Finally, Christians in America need to stop bitching about being persecuted. Christianity is the predominant religion in the U.S. (and the rest of the world) with over 80% of the population professing some belief in the Christian God. The holidays are largely Christian, the weekends are set from Christian holy days, and blue laws are still on the books in many states. Judges and elected officials are still sworn in on the Christian Bible. It's almost impossible to be elected for any high public office if you DON'T profess belief in the Christian God. You are NOT being persecuted. Shut the fuck up about it already.

I should have had this idea first

2009-08-28T10:02:00.000-07:00

Pure genius. These guys (all certified atheists) offer to take care of pets after their owners get Raptured into heaven. The service costs $110.00 for the first pet, and the contract lasts for ten years. Each additional pet costs $15.00. That's actually a fantastic deal, if you care about your pets and sincerely believe the Rapture could happen in the next 10 years.

On the other hand, you might realize that, should the Rapture actually happen, the world will be thrown into a state of chaos (a la Left Behind) and chances are that these well-meaning atheists won't be able to follow through on their contract. Still, the potential benefits presumably outweigh the risks: even if the chances of actually receiving the service are around 20%, your beloved pet has a sizable chance of surviving the chaos following the Rapture!

My brother Joe (introduced here for the first time) once tried to sell me the Best Thing Evar. He offered it to me for the low, low cost of $10,000, but explained that there was a 99.9% chance I'd never get it. Because this item is seriously the best thing evar, receiving it holds near infinite benefit. So, the near infinite benefit outweighs the risk of losing any finite amount of money. Makes sense, right? Anyone want to bid on it?

~80 years is not enough

2009-08-27T15:31:00.000-07:00

...to do everything I would ever want to do, even if I didn't sleep at all. Evidence: entomology classes. I'd seriously never thought I'd like to study insects, but they're awesome! Omg. Flail. This semester I'm taking one entomology class, and two labs, for a total of five credit hours JUST ABOUT BUGS.

One of the lab professors brought in the department's pet tarantula, Rosie:

She was adorable! I want a pet tarantula so bad now. I've been looking up guides to raising them--maybe I'll pick one up later this semester.

We also were issued bug collecting equipment. I'm going to try to go up to Horsetooth Reservoir this weekend and catch me some creepy crawlies.

Not So Great, Actually

2009-08-21T12:38:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting in the basement of the office building for my apartment complex because they offer free WiFi (I'm too poor to buy my own). Yesterday I discovered that they have a coffee/cappuchino/chai machine upstairs--and get this, it's free! Wheee!

Only NOT. I mean, it's free. But not whee-worthy. I just eagerly made myself a chai tea, with "creamy topping" and everything, and I got this horrible, frothy sludge that, at best, tastes like warm pee mixed with a brown crayon. No wonder they give this stuff away. I'm surprised they don't pay you to take it.

Woman Gets Whipped for Drinking Beer

2009-08-21T12:15:00.001-07:00

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, a 32-year-old Malay woman, is going to be caned publicly for the heinous crime of drinking beer. Shukarno is a Muslim, and therefore subject to sharia (Islamic) law. Weirdly, you don't have to be a Muslim in Malaysia, but if you are, the Syariah Courts get to do all kinds of stuff to you that they can't do to non-Muslims. Including caning you for boozing with your pals.

My first thought is: who the hell would subject themselves to that? Islam isn't forced on anyone, and in most states, there's no punishment for apostasy. This seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. On the other hand, I recognize that leaving the religion of your birth culture can be extremely traumatic for a lot of people--worse than getting a beating now and then. Also, only Muslims get to be classified as ethnic Malays. As far as I can tell, losing this classification doesn't disadvantage you legally, it just separates you from your birth culture a bit.

In short, you have the choice to either leave your religion (possibly causing great psychological harm) and lose some of your cultural heritage, or get beaten for things you do privately that don't hurt anyone else. Freedom of religion ftw, right?

The saddest part of this whole thing, I think, is that Shukarno doesn't disagree with her punishment. In fact, she asked that the caning take place publicly (it's usually done in a prison) so that other Muslims are deterred from doing what she did. Remember: her crime was three glasses of beer in a hotel lobby. And she believes she did a horrible thing! If only her culture encouraged people to think critically about the rules and punishments meted out by their government. Or, for that matter, the rules and punishments laid out in their holy books.

I wish there were some way I could send a letter to this poor woman. Apparently she's been dragged through the courts since December 2007, and as a result, lost her full-time job at a hospital. On top of that, she probably has boatloads of guilt for her feckless, heathen ways. Since I can't write her, I'm making a $10 donation in Shukarno's name to Amnesty International, who is pressuring the Malaysian government to revoke caning as a punishment for any crime.

House Reference in First Post = WIN

2009-08-20T15:23:00.000-07:00

Welcome.

I feel that greeting should be accompanied with a loud, sinister laugh. Please insert it with your imagination, or listen to Hugh Laurie do it.

Anyways. Hello and welcome to The MetaSkeptic blog. I am venturing into blog writing because I feel my opinions are too important and intelligent to keep to myself. But isn't that how every blog writer gets started? In reality, I wager that less than 2% of blogs are worth the time, and I'm too realistic to believe that my blog will ever be among those select few. This is an exercise for my own benefit: I hope to improve my writing and critical thinking skills, as well as keep up with current events. I also hope to garner enough of a critical readership to challenge my viewpoints and make me defend all the shit I say.

On with the introduction.

About Me: I'm a 21-year-old college student living in Fort Collins, Colorado. I recently graduated from Washington University in St. Louis with an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, with a minor in Political Science. Currently, I'm enrolled at Colorado State University for a second bachelor's degree in Forestry, minoring in Mathematics. I was raised in a conservative Christian home, and now identify as a liberal atheist (yep, college is every bit as corrupting as the fundie parents fear). I care about too many issues to list, but the most important to me are religion, education, the environment, and human rights. In short, I want church out of our schools and government, I want every child to have the opportunity to develop into an autonomous agent, I want people to stop fucking over baby harp seals, and I want Muslim women to wear bikinis if they want. YEAH I'M A RADICAL.

Purpose of the blog: I predict that only about 10% of the content on this blog will be about my personal life. Maybe even less. My life's not that interesting. At least 60% of the remaining will be related to religion--that's my hot topic, and it's not likely to change any time soon. The rest will probably be split about equally between human rights issues (especially LGBT and women's rights), environmental stuffs, science from a layperson's point of view, random geekiness, and philosophy (mostly ethics, but I might throw in some random metaphysics shwag).

Goals: As a longtime blog reader, I know I'll be tempted to grab a lot of source material from all the other blogs I read. So my main goal is to avoid pimping awesome blogs with every post. I will not be a mindless Pharyngula acolyte (if there even is such a thing). But you should still totally check out my blog list and read these awesome writers for yourself. I will also try to post at least an average of twice a week. Finally, I will NOT apologize for not updating. I've found that's the fastest way to kill my motivation to write.

Comment Rules: Comments will be uncensored, and criticism is welcome. However, unconstructive spamming will be deleted out of respect for the other commentators who actually give a damn about having a good discussion. Disagreeing with me is fine, posting "YOUR AN IDIOT" 50 times is not.

That's about all I can think of. Real posts to come soon.