Boss of the Day, With Bonus Quote

I was recently made aware of this brilliant 3-part series by John Oliver, as many of the Daily Show's segments are. John Oliver, boss of the day, for making the point so spectacularly in short clips of awesome-sauce.

 

It's great, even more so for giving us this excellent example of American Exceptionalism:

John Oliver: What if, hypothetically speaking, what if gun control could work? Which obviously it can't, so, we know that it wont, so that's not a problem, but what if it could, due to that time that it did?

Philip Van Cleave: Okay, when was that?

John Oliver: Australia

 [....]

Philip Van Cleave: I guess if we're going to go to planet X, and say it's not the United States, it's some, some other planet with different people different everything, I don't know, yea, I don't know, it, it, but in the real world, with real human beings it's not going to work and we, gun control is not going to work.

Emphasis mine

Are you fucking serious? Please, please tell me they took that quote out of context. And yet, it doesn't surprise me either. America is the world. Australia? That's planet X, with aliens, not real human beings. 

Extra Extra Bonus: Australian comedian also making the comparison between US and Aussie gun control, where I actually heard about this first, and also very funny

When a Negative Statement Becomes A Claim

The other day I got into a bit of a strange discussion with my colleagues, which involved me being alone on my side of the debate defending the existence of male bisexuality.

It all started with the observation that our culture is far more accepting of a fluid sexuality for women, as it is less acceptable for a man to admit to having had the occasional male partner but still claiming to prefer women. While initially the people I was speaking to decried this double standard as unfair, at the end they still claimed that they also thought that any man who has had male partners, or wanted to have male partners is probably actually gay, and that the Kinsey Scale is probably only applicable to women. I disagreed. There are plenty of men, some of whom I know personally who claim to be bisexual, on what basis can they claim that in reality male bisexuality doesn't exist? Personal experience is not science! I was told. That is not evidence! Who am I to say that it does exists? I have just as much justification to claim it does as they do to claim that it doesn't. 

The details of our discussion are not that important to what I want to talk about here. The point is that this whole thing got me thinking about positive versus negative claims, and how sometimes making a negative claim is actually the one requiring a larger burden of proof.

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claim. This is a very common statement used to explain atheism, and why the absence of evidence leads one to assume the negative. There is no evidence that fairies exist, therefore I do not believe they exist. Same goes for unicorns, or dragons. I cannot prove that they don't exist, it is impossible to prove a negative, but I am not going to believe in them until I have good reason to do so. What is more, personal accounts of having seen a fairy or unicorn or dragon (or, for that matter, God) does not count as evidence in the slightest. Given this logic, I am the one with the burden of proof, no? I am the one claiming that male bisexuality exists. They are claiming it does not. Shouldn't I be the one who has the burden of proof in this case?

Their claim that male bisexuality does not exist struck me as a much bolder statement than my claim that it does, and then I realized why.

The fact of the matter is, when it comes to something as personal as sexual attraction, personal statements do count as evidence. With something as complex as human behavior, there is very little in the way of objective evidence that one can collect, akin to something like finding an actual fairy. That doesn't mean that one cannot attempt to design experiments which attempt to collect more objective evidence in order to verify these claims, but in this case the claims themselves do hold significant weight.

Imagine for a moment the more extreme version of this argument. There is no such thing as gay people! People who engage in gay sex are just abusers! Or people who have been abused! Or people who just want to engage in extreme sex! That seems like a very bold statement, no? It seems as though someone who believes that would have to do far more legwork than someone who believes that gay people exist in order to prove their point, even though they're stating the negative.

In this scenario, it's not that any of these people would need to prove that male bisexuality, or homosexuality doesn't exist. This encounters the same problems as trying to prove that fairies don't exist. However, what they would have to do is start by finding a plausible, evidence-backed alternative to explain all of those people who do identify as gay, or bisexual, or whatever. They need to do a lot more legwork to bring the conversation back to an even 50:50, maybe it exists and maybe it doesn't, equal evidence on both sides. Without finding evidence that there is an alternative explanation for all of those people, it is actually far more reasonable to assume that male bisexuality does in fact exist, in lieu of further evidence.

Do you see where I'm coming from? Any thoughts?

Conflating Morality With Legality

I started thinking about this topic when I was discussing the legality of C-sections in Italy with a colleague of mine. I was unaware of this, but apparently it is technically illegal for a woman to give birth via C-section unless there is a legittimate medical reason for doing so. Given the rather loose language that entails, and the fact that there are far far more C-sections being performed in the South compared to Northern Italian states, leads us to believe that if a woman really wants to have one, she can find a doctor who will be willing to schedule her one. The point of disagreement between us was based on whether or not this law should exist at all.

 

Her perspective on this is that, while she has absolutely no problem with avoiding a vaginal birth for legittimate health concerns (a baby not turning, heart problems etc.), she believes that no woman should be allowed to simply opt for a C-section simply because of fear of a vaginal birth, stating studies that have found a correlation between cesarean births and an increased risk of certain chronic illnesses. It is her opinion that pregnancy comes with certain responsibilities, one of which is giving birth as nature intended, should you have a completely normal and healthy pregnancy. I of course disagreed, hence my writing this post.

 

I realized that all too often we conflate what we believe is immoral with what we believe should be illegal, and this is not, nor should it be always the case. Of course there is significant overlap between the two concepts, but there is also plenty of space for the two things to remain seperate. The problem is that morality is inherently subjective, especially when we begin to dissect these kinds of minor issues, while the law is objectively applied across the board. It is therefore important to not allow one's own opinion about the morality of something to affect a law which would be applied to everyone without good supporting reasons.

 

I disagreed with her reasoning because, essentially, I believe it comes down to bodily autonomy. Either someone has control over their own body, or they don't. It's the same reason why I think it doesn't matter whether or not someone thinks abortion is immoral, it should still be legal. While I concede that there is evidence that C-sections can lead to increased risk of certain kinds of illness, so can maternal obesity, gestational weight gain and, ever so importantly, drinking, but we don't go around criminalizing any of these behaviors simply because they bring an increased risk of harm to the fetus. We rely on educating women on the facts and dangers associated with certain behaviors but, ultimately, we trust them as adults to make their own decisions regarding their body and their life. To me, whether or not I think it is moral for a woman to opt for a C-section out of fear, her legal right to do so should not be in question.

 

An Atheist's Reason For The Season

This post is appropriate for (two days after...oops) the 8th of December, which as I have mentioned before is the day in which, traditionally, the Christmas season officially starts in Italy. It is the day the trees go up, the Christmas lights come on on the streets and the Christmas markets officially begin (although I have noticed that this year, in light of the economic crisis, they were given permission to open shop earlier than usual) all to coincide with that famously confusing Immaculate Conception. I am one of those atheists that does in fact celebrate Christmas, or Mithrasmas, or Xmas, or whatever I may feel like calling it. I like it, its fun, and every year I act as Santa for my grinchy Italian family buying everyone's gifts for everyone else, so getting to Christmas knowing what's in all the packages except for my own. This does not mean, however, that I do not know plenty of people that are of Taslima Nasreen's opinion, that it is silly to celebrate Christmas:

I get surprised when ex-Christian atheists instead of celebrating a day off work, celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a Christian holiday, a religious event — it is for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in God the father, Jesus the son or the holy spirit. Atheists are not Christians, they do not need to participate in Christian holiday.  

Well, I think that part of the answer come in her next paragraph (emphasis my own)

Many atheists even celebrate the pagan festival of winter solstice. Why do they need to celebrate a Pagan festival? It is true that many rituals of modern Christmas celebrations are pagan. But this is not a good reason to celebrate Christmas or Solstice. Atheists are neither pagan nor Christian. They don’t uphold ancient pagan superstitions, so why do so with those which happen to be popular at Christmas time? There’s nothing about ancient paganism which is any more rational than modern Christianity.

That's exactly it, Christmas celebrations as we know them are really bastardizations of much older pagan rituals, adopted when Christianity became big. Those who believe in a historical Jesus say that, if he did exist he most likely was born in September, so why change it all up in order to fit nicely with a pagan holiday which has nothing at all to do with Christianity?

Well, because people like their holidays and like their traditions. They are some of the best childhood memories for some people, and often they want to continue those great memories for their own kids. For Christians it was strategy: it's much easier to convince people to switch over to your religion when you tell them they don't have to change some of their favorite things about their old one, but for many atheists it's for similar reasons that we continue to celebrate it. People have been celebrating this time of year for ages, all under different names, so why can't we do the same thing this time around and have atheistic Xmas? I had some great Xmases in my time and I want to have that for my kids, the tree, the presents, the dinner, the family, all of it holds a special place in my heart and is an experience I wouldn't want to deny my future children. So what if Christians also celebrate this time of year for their own purposes? Why should that affect my celebrations with my family?

Now, do any atheists have to celebrate Xmas? Of course not! If they don't have any special memories attached to it or don't like it, then don't celebrate it! Celebrate, as Taslima suggests, Women's Day or Anti-Slavery Day, or hell make up a random date and call it My Family Day and come up with a bunch of traditions for your family alone!

The only thing that I would personally suggest, as I did to a friend of mine who does not have the happy Xmas memories that I do, is not to forgo having any holiday at all to celebrate, especially if you have kids. I know people say "well I can see my family at any time", but when life starts to get going and each family member starts doing their own thing, it's amazing how quickly time slips by until you stop for a minute and think crap, how long has it been since we've all been together in the same place at the same time?

 Having an xmas-like holiday gives everyone something to look forward to. It makes you stop and think what would my brother/sister/uncle/mother really like? What present could I get them that would make them happy? It gives you an excuse to bake cookies, make a nice meal or whatever else you don't indulge in when you're far too busy working. Most importantly, it gives everyone an excuse to drop whatever they're doing, take a break and visit with family and friends. I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all.

So as for me? I just bought my xmas tree and decorated it over the weekend listening to Nat King Cole carol for me. I then made myself a nice hot chocolate and relaxed, enjoying the beginning of the season, amazingly watching it snow outside. I was content, and I could care less that at the same time there were others boring themselves silly at mass. They're celebrations have nothing to do with me, and mine are for my benefit, not for Christianity's.




As an aside, if you haven't seen Taslima Nasreen's blog yet, do check it out. I may have disagreed with her in this case, but I do think her writing is remarkable. However I do think a trigger warning is in order: many of her posts are very hardcore: she blogs about women's rights and fundamentalist Islam, so the sad hard truth about rape, beatings and torture, including graphic images and videos, can often be found there.

Thoughts On: How We Judge Reality

Now that I have managed, somehow, to get through my 2 presentations in 10 days, I think I can breathe a little bit and get to the topics that I have had mulling around in my head for a while.

I'm sure that all of your have heard this narrative at some point in your lives. For me, I found that it became particularly prevalent in my pre-teen/early teen years, when kids really start to delve into their first existential questions. 

The very first ones of course tend to come up much earlier. For example, I remember thinking I was HOT SHIT when, at 8 years old and first discovering the existence of color-blindness, I came up with the age-old question: How do I know that what I see as blue is what you see as blue? Maybe what I call blue, you call purple! OMG SUBJECTIVITY FTW!! But apart from those classic one-hit wonders, the real "deep" discussions (which often ended in, if not tears, a lot of brooding and moody pondering), at least for me and my peers, began at the pre-teen stage. Things like whether or not love exists, whether or not the soul exists, whether or not the supernatural exists, what that all means with respect to us and our lives and our meaning and purpose, these were all hotly discussed. 

Of course these discussions were not as "deep" as we thought them to be at the time, which is about as much as you can expect from a bunch of barely pubescent kids. They were riddled with logical fallacies and a whole lot of "this is what I would like to be true and therefore this is what I believe" was going on, but that is immaterial to the point I will finally get to. The common thread of discussion that I want to bring up is one that I'm sure you've all heard by now, and I want to bring it up because it is one that I have heard come up among adults as well. It goes a little something like this:

Desperate Romantic (DR): Of course true love exists! I believe in it fully! It is what makes us human! It is what binds us! 
Presumed Skeptic (PS): I don't believe in true love. It doesn't exist. 
DR: Well I've found a soul mate! How do you explain that?
PS: There are no soul mates because there is no soul. The soul is just electrical impulses in the brain. Love is just hormones firing in the brain, that's all.
DR: You're diminishing what it means to be human by saying that! That's such a nihilistic perspective! 

And here is where I get lost in the backwards-ness of our culture.

Notice how DR is the one who says s/he believes in things like love and the soul, while PS is the one who claims not to.
And yet PS is the only one that is pointing to a physical, measurable something that either love or the soul could be, while DR insists they have to be invisible, unseeable, unmeasurable, untouchable.
Catch my problem here yet?

What I don't understand is how in the bleeding hell we managed to get so twisted in our logic that we accept that if something is invisible, unmeasurable and untouchable makes it more real, while claiming that it can be seen or measured makes it less real. That is why I called the second generic person in this back and forth "presumed" skeptic, because despite being seen as the nihilistic atheistic person in this exchange, they are making just as much of a backwards and illogical argument as the first person is. 

What is so bad about finding the chemical, measurable source of love? Doesn't finding that, measuring that, by definition prove it to be real? Why are so many people, PS-es out there included, so ready to dismiss the natural world as less-than? But more than that, how did we get here? Isn't it amazing that if tomorrow scientists came out and demonstrated a measurable compound which causes the feeling of love, and demonstrate that that feeling of love can be viewed in the brain beyond a shadow of a doubt, so many people would throw up their hands and cry "well that does it, love doesn't exist!" ??!! 

I believe that there is a physical, natural source for love, and therefore I believe that love exists. Interestingly, I was always on the outskirts listening in when this particular debate came up in my childhood, because I hadn't quite made up my mind about it.

Now I realize that the reason for that is because I was truly in the middle.

Forcing The Discussion

And here I am to prostrate myself at your virtual feet for by prolonged and undue absence. I was going through a writer's block, a "crap I have nothing to say, and no one cares what I have to say anyway" phase, from which I have been shocked out of in light of recent viral stories that I want to add my two cents to. 

By now, I'm sure you have all heard about Savita Halappanavar, the most recent face put on the victims of the Catholic Church's meddlings in societies to which they do not contribute.

Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

The dead foetus was removed and Savita was taken to the high dependency unit and then the intensive care unit, where she died of septicaemia on the 28th.

There was no chance, none whatsoever that her foetus would survive. Despite this, they chose to put the life of its mother at risk, by choosing the arbitrary standard of a foetal heartbeat as proof it was still alive, thereby directly causing her death.

I wonder, are heart transplants illegal in Ireland as well? The person's heart is still beating when it is removed for transplant, it must be in order to still be viable, but by their own logic isn't that directly killing their patient and therefore illegal?

So why am I deciding to weigh in at this point? Why is this one case so important?

I hope that this is what will finally precipitate a real discussion that we need to have regarding the liberties we give Catholic hospitals. 

Even if it is discovered that this was an isolated case, one in which her doctor was negligent and solely at fault, even if it is discovered that his actions were not in accordance with proceedure at the Catholic hospital in question, even if the administration of said hospital is absolved of any responsibility beyond any doubt, we still need to have this conversation.

This is not the first time that we are faced with the disgusting proceedures in Catholic hospitals. Take ectopic pregnancies, which have 0% chance of survival, since the foetus will burst the fallopian tube and kill the mother once it reaches a certain size. We have heard of Catholic hospitals which refuse to remove the embryo in question because of their "morals", opting instead to remove the woman's entire fallopian tube, greatly reducing her fertility and turning a simple operation into a far more dangerous one. Where was the global outcry then?

What about the sawing of women's pelvises to make them into supreme baby-making machines? 

The problem is the lack of a face, a victim, someone that the whole world rallies around. Now there is one, and with enough people paying attention we need to address the real issue: how much are we going to allow hospitals to get away with?

We need laws, real laws, limiting in explicit words what religious hospitals are allowed to do and still operate as hospitals. If Jehovah's Witnesses decide their going to open up a hospital but refuse to give blood transfusions to any of their patients, even to save their lives? Guess what, you don't get to be a hospital, you don't get a cent of govnerment money and you sure as shit aren't going to be served by ambulences that might bring an unwitting patient to your doors. If a Catholic Church refuses to save a woman's life because she has some foreign DNA inside her? Fuck you, you don't get to be a hospital anymore, end of story. 

Now, when people are really looking and really paying attention, now is the time to act.

Says It All

Thank you Why Evolution Is True for this little gem:

Boycotting: A Clarification

I am a little bit of a couch-potato activist myself, and I am known to participate in quite a few boycotts. I get criticized about this a lot, because I feel that there are many misconceptions that those who are even lazier than I am use to discredit those that participate in boycotts. I was reminded of some of these by one of TheYoungTurks's videos I saw yesterday:

So obviously the hosts are saying come on, it's silly to boycott someone's business because of their political views, or because they support the president. Not that people don't have the right to boycott whatever they like, obviously, but I agree that this particular reason for boycotting a place of business is stupid. Immediately, the right-wing voice of the youtube commenters riles up in protest. BIAS! YOU'RE BIASED! What about the Chick-Fil-A boycott hmmm? Didn't think it was so stupid to boycott a place of business when it was against Republicans!! 

Ugh, I've heard this either-think-all-boycotts-are-equally-valid-or-fuck-off argument before, and I feel that I need to clarify. These are the circumstances under which I personally will boycott a business, and while of course I cannot speak for everyone, I think that I have a logical basis for choosing to do so. 


1. When the business/owner(s) give money to causes I abhor

This, for me, is the most obvious reason to boycott a business. In the case of Chick-Fil-A, the company donated enormous amounts of money to organizations that spend that money trying to deny Americans equal rights under the law. That means that, if I was to spend money there, part of my money would be donated to a cause that I loathe. I don't want my money to go to any such organization.

Now I don't live in the United States, so I can only support the boycott from afar and not actively participate in it, but there are other products that I do not buy for the same reasons: you're not going to find l'Oreal shampoo in my bathroom, that's for sure.


2. When the companies themselves profit from disgusting practices

I will not help a company to profit off of pain and suffering, but this is the one that I get criticized the most for. This is the reason that I will not buy anything from Nestlè, but far too many people are willing to look past killing children in Africa when reaching for their KitKat bar. I'm sorry, there's no chocolate in the world that tastes good enough for me to say "hmm, give money to a company that is unrepentant in the suffering that it causes for a Lion bar? Yea, having a lion bar is way more important". Fuck that. It is also the reason I always buy Fair Trade chocolate: chocolate is a commodity, a vice, and one of the least ethically produced foods there is. If I can't afford to buy it Fair Trade, I don't have to buy it, I don't need it to survive.

This is where misconception number 2 comes in: people will say to me "yea, you think you're going to bring Nestlè down to its knees because you wont buy their cereal? Way to feel self-important! You can't change it, so why bother putting in the effort?" No, I don't think that I am going to change things. But I hate this idea that I have no choice in this consumer-based capilist society. I, as a consumer, can choose which companies I give my money to and which ones I don't. I, as a consumer, would not feel right about telling companies like Nestlè go ahead! You can eat a live wriggling African baby and I'll still give you my money! No, I wont, regardless of how much impact my decision has on the company.

And like it or not, in a very slow way, these decisions are making a difference. In the past 10 years I've seen fair trade items explode on the market. I've seen documentaries on the subject, awareness being spread and more and more companies jumping on the bandwagon.

Enter, if you please, misconception number 3: "Pfft, you think that Starbucks is taking part in this fair trade crap because the owners are nice and cuddly? Because they actually care about people? Please! It's so they can charge 10% more and boost their sales!" Well guess what, i don't care. I don't care if their reasons are greed and not social justice. The fact that they are doing the right thing is enough for me, regardless of what pushed them to do it. So long as they actually abide by the standards that qualify as fair trade, and that those standards are not drastically reduced in order to render them meaningless, I. don't. care. The fact that there are workers who get health care, enough to eat and can send their kids to school is enough reason for me to spend an extra 80 cents on chocolate. 

3. When the company actively discriminates against a group of people

This one is a little trickier, because I need real proof that the business in question is discriminating against people. The whole Gelato-Gate incident is a prime example, but if I was also presented with evidence of a business firing someone for being gay or refusing to hire Muslims I would react in the same way.

The reason I say it is tricky is because I draw the line at someone being a bigot themselves. I think that you're a crappy person if you're a bigot, and I might not be your friend, but I wont boycott you're business because you're ignorant. You are free to think whatever you want, but the moment that your thoughts and prejudices negatively impact innocent people? That's when I get mad, and decide that I cannot support you.

So this brings me to conclude when I wont boycott a business:

1. When the owner has a different opinion than my own about something
2. When the owner is religious
3. When the owner is privately ignorant
4. When the owner is of a different political ideology

Is that clear enough for the boycott-haters, do you think?

And are there any other circumstances under which you would, or would not, boycott a business?

Repost: Charles Negy Is A Boss

Thank you TYTUniversity for bringing this highly amusing and inspiring story to my attention

For too long I've been reading stories about the rapid decline of the quality of higher education in the United States, so I was very grateful that for once I got to see a story that doesn't make me lose hope in colleges in the US.

I tracked down the full letter from reddit, and if you also can only see a truncated version of it posted there, here it is:

Hello, Cross-Cultural students, I am writing to express my views on how some of you have conducted yourself in this university course you are taking with me. It is not uncommon for some-to-many American students, who typically, are first-generation college students, to not fully understand, and maybe not even appreciate the purpose of a university. Some students erroneously believe a university is just an extension of high school, where students are spoon-fed “soft” topics and dilemmas to confront, regurgitate the “right” answers on exams (right answers as deemed by the instructor or a textbook), and then move on to the next course.

Not only is this not the purpose of a university (although it may feel like it is in some of your other courses), it clearly is not the purpose of my upper-division course on Cross-Cultural Psychology. The purpose of a university, and my course in particular, is to struggle intellectually with some of life's most difficult topics that may not have one right answer, and try to come to some conclusion about what may be “the better answer” (It typically is not the case that all views are equally valid; some views are more defensible than others). Another purpose of a university, and my course in particular, is to engage in open discussion in order to critically examine beliefs, behaviors, and customs. Finally, another purpose of a university education is to help students who typically are not accustomed to thinking independently or applying a critical analysis to views or beliefs, to start learning how to do so. We are not in class to learn “facts” and simply regurgitate the facts in a mindless way to items on a test. Critical thinking is a skill that develops over time. Independent thinking does not occur overnight. Critical thinkers are open to having their cherished beliefs challenged, and must learn how to “defend” their views based on evidence or logic, rather than simply “pounding their chest” and merely proclaiming that their views are “valid.” One characteristic of the critical, independent thinker is being able to recognize fantasy versus reality; to recognize the difference between personal beliefs which are nothing more than personal beliefs, versus views that are grounded in evidence, or which have no evidence.

Last class meeting and for 15 minutes today, we addressed “religious bigotry.” Several points are worth contemplating:

1. Religion and culture go “hand in hand.” For some cultures, they are so intertwined that it is difficult to know with certainty if a specific belief or custom is “cultural” or “religious” in origin. The student in class tonight who proclaimed that my class was supposed to be about different cultures (and not religion) lacks an understanding about what constitutes “culture.” (of course, I think her real agenda was to stop my comments about religion).
2. Students in my class who openly proclaimed that Christianity is the most valid religion, as some of you did last class, portrayed precisely what religious bigotry is. Bigots—racial bigot or religious bigots—never question their prejudices and bigotry. They are convinced their beliefs are correct. For the Christians in my class who argued the validity of Christianity last week, I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating to the rest of the class what religious arrogance and bigotry looks like. It seems to have not even occurred to you (I'm directing this comment to those students who manifested such bigotry), as I tried to point out in class tonight, how such bigotry is perceived and experienced by the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the non-believers, and so on, in class, to have to sit and endure the tyranny of the masses (the dominant group, that is, which in this case, are Christians).
3. The male student who stood up in class and directed the rest of the class to “not participate” by not responding to my challenge, represented the worst of education. For starters, the idea that a person—student or instructor—would instruct other students on how to behave, is pretty arrogant and grossly disrespects the rights of other students who can and want to think for themselves and decide for themselves whether they want to engage in the exchange of ideas or not. Moreover, this “let's just put our fingers in our ears so we will not hear what we disagree with” is appallingly childish and exemplifies “anti-intellectualism.” The purpose of a university is to engage in dialogue, debate, and exchange ideas in order to try and come to some meaningful conclusion about an issue at hand. Not to shut ourselves off from ideas we find threatening.

Universities hold a special place in society where scholarly-minded folks can come together and discuss controversial, polemic, and often uncomfortable topics. Universities, including UCF, have special policies in place to protect our (both professors’ and students’) freedom to express ourselves. Neither students nor professors have a right to censor speech that makes us uncomfortable. We're adults. We're at a university. There is no topic that is “off-limits” for us to address in class, if even only remotely related to the course topic. I hope you will digest this message, and just as important, will take it to heart as it may apply to you.

Charles Negy

Charles Negy, you are a Boss. Keep fighting the good fight!

It's OK If We Disagree

Phew sorry about that little absence guys! Almost managed to land myself in the emergency room, but I’m back and no worse for wear (you’re not getting rid of me that easily!)

As I’m sure you have gathered by the content of this blog, I get into arguments with a variety of different people quite often. Consider also that, due to my rather busy schedule all of the arguments that I have posted here have been initiated by people that have contacted me directly in search of a discussion, I haven’t started any of them myself. You can only imagine then how many arguments I get into in the “real world”, where points of contention will normally spring up in conversation with people that I don’t know, or don’t know well. It is my rather argumentative nature that has people exasperated with me at times, and I am frequently accused of being arrogant, in that people “have to agree with me”. It is a common accusation thrown around by people that are not willing to defend their positions, and one that I would like to address.

No, we don’t have to agree. I am fully aware that we as human beings possess a variety of different opinions and points of view, and this heterogeneity is something that makes us so interesting. I love meeting someone that has a different perspective from my own because I want to know all about it, how they reached that conclusion and what logical thought process brought them to a different endpoint than my own.

I don’t just say things or repeat what people I like say around me, I overthink pretty much every position I have to death. It is because of this that, if someone around me has a belief or an opinion that my logic has previously discarded, I want to know how they got there. If I find a logical fallacy or a source of inconsistency in their thought process I hammer on about it. Easy examples could be how can you call yourself a fiscal conservative, wanting to cut social programs for people that need them the most, while supporting tax cuts for the super wealthy that actually cost the country more than the social programs do? How can you laugh and scoff at people who believe in chemtrails or AIDS-denialists, but don’t laugh and scoff at anti-vaxxers?

These questions are meant to point out inconsistencies in a person’s thought process, and can bring to light either

1. That they never noticed that there is an inconsistency
2. That they are unaware of the facts, or lack thereof, that support a certain belief they have
3. That I am the one with the fault in logic because I was unaware of a different aspect of the topic that this person can inform me about.

I do not want hypocrisy or fallacy to influence my conclusions, so I assume that others feel the same way. Of course, there are many people who don’t overthink their positions the way that I do, that don’t want to get into detailed conversations about why they believe what they do, they just want to be able to tell the world about them without any pushback. Once I realize that the person I am talking to does not actually have any more to contribute to the conversation because of the lack of thought behind their opinion I usually abandon the conversation, at least after I am certain that they are not curious to know more about the facts they were unaware of. Despite this I still am accused of needing everyone to agree with me because unfortunately abandonment of the conversation is usually how the argument ends (or, incidentally, with the person actually agreeing with me), but I want to clarify.

If we disagree, it’s OK. I have no problem with people who have different opinions than my own. If you tell me that you think that the super rich should get tax breaks because they deserve it fine, that is your opinion. If you tell me that you think that the state should fund religious institutions fine, that is your opinion. All I ask is that your opinions be based on the facts.

Don’t tell me that you think that the super rich deserve tax breaks because they are disproportionately picked on in society, that’s just untrue. Don’t tell me that you support the death penalty because it is cheaper and a better deterrent than life in prison, that is untrue. Don’t tell me that you think that abortion should be illegal because a zygote can feel pain, that is simply ridiculous.

We don’t have to agree, if anything our not agreeing can lead to a very interesting discussion. The only thing that I insist on agreeing on is what the facts are, what is reality.

And with that, I leave you with a video of someone who seems to have the same problem I do in this regard

Oh Yea? Well... You're Mommy Is A Poopyhead!!

I’ve finally passed the first major hurdle of those crazy deadlines I was telling you about, enough to have a little time to squeeze in a story that’s been on my mind for the last few days. It seems as though it is only when I am at my busiest that people start pestering me with the silliest things, this time it was a friend of a friend on facebook that was trying to make the losing argument that FOX News is an excellent news source with well researched stories. 

It all started with my friend quoting an article from the blaze, where I told him how terribly he had hurt my feelings that he had stooped so low. He told me that he still loved me despite us being political worlds apart, to which I responded 

We don’t have to agree politically, I just wished you respected facts and journalistic integrity, neither of which can be found on the blaze or Fox News. 

At this point one of his friends decided to bogart the conversation, among other things accusing me of having a warped definition of journalistic integrity, which was funny, since I had never given one. I didn’t think he could possibly be serious, so I simply stated that Fox is not defensible, not if you’re literate. This sent him on a tirade of NBC and MSNBC suck you know! You’re telling me they’re better?! No I said, I’m not commenting on other news sources, I’m commenting on FOX, which is terrible, systemically biased, and a great source for ridiculous outbursts like “Amsterdam is a cesspool of corruption!”; “Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can’t explain that!”; “Now we all know that Jon Stewart is going to Hell” and so many more. He fired back with the same argument: other news sources are bad you know! You’re not aware that one time Chris Matthews told Hilary Clinton he’d help her?! 

 It didn’t matter how many times I tried to explain to him that the “well, other people suck too!” is not a valid argument he went back to it four times, after which I abandoned the conversation. While there was no point in letting the facebook flame wars we were having devolve any further as he was getting less and less coherent as time went on (at one point he accused me of having made a race-based argument, though making clear that he was not calling me a racist o.O), I felt the need to address this. 

If someone criticizes something that you like or respect, is your automatic reaction to 

A. Use that criticism to make assumptions about what that person likes or respects, and 

B. Use “well, what you like SUCKS!” as an argument? 

If you do, please stop, it’s a very silly argument. 

Leaving out the weird rambling racist analogy that my facebook rival was trying to formulate to address this issue, let me give you an analogy myself. 

I walk in to your apartment building, and immediately I notice that something is off. There’s a musty smell in the lobby, I can clearly see water damage on one side of the building, the security camera monitoring the front door is broken and the elevator door jams a lot. I tell you “damn, you’re apartment building really sucks!” 

You respond “yea, well, other apartment buildings on this block suck too you know! I saw paint peeling in the bathroom of number 8! And the doorman at number 5 is really rude! You can’t prove that my apartment building is the worst!” 

You’re right, I can’t, because to do so would require me investigating every inch of every apartment building on the block, which would honestly take far more time and effort than I am willing to put into this. I can say that I suspect your apartment building is the worst, given what I have seen so far, but for all I know the building next door has a devil’s gate to Hell hidden in the basement that I don’t know about. Also, you have to define what you mean by “worst”, worst in structure? Damage? Security? Aesthetically? Anyway it doesn’t matter if you’re the worst, the second worst or the best. I never accused your building to be the worst, I simply told you there are some major problems with it. 

Unperturbed, you pursue the argument “Oh yea?! Well, number 6 over there had a fire in one of the apartments once! And number 10 only has seven floors instead of nine!” 

I start to get frustrated, because I’m not talking about the other buildings, I’m talking about yours. If there are other apartment buildings that also have problems that sucks, but it has no bearing on the horrible conditions of yours. The conditions of your building are no better if it is surrounded by worse buildings and no worse if it is surrounded by better buildings. The problems in your place stand on their own and I am criticizing them objectively, not comparatively. If there are problems along the entire block that might be indicative of another problem, perhaps the people that built them are corrupt and need investigating, but that is not the issue here. The issue is there are problems that you and everyone else who lives in this crap apartment building need to address, regardless of what others do in other buildings. 

Still unperturbed, you continue “You can’t be objective because you love all the other buildings and want to hate mine no matter what! Did you know that number 3 had a rat in the basement? I saw it! And number 9 has squeaky doors!” 

And this is where I abandon the conversation, because there is no argument to be made with a brick wall of stubborn. 

If someone takes issue with something that you like or respect, you need to address the specific criticisms that that person has. If they are right, take a good look at them and see if they have a point. Screaming at everyone else around you in order to deflect negative attention from yourself not only is a losing argument, it makes you look like a child having a tantrum. 

Extra brownie points to anyone who feels like turning the above exchange into a webcomic, we’ll call it “talking to Fox viewers” :)

We Need To Add Some Extra Humanity

I'm still in the throes of those crazy deadlines I was telling you about, but I managed to squeeze in a little time to watch this video and felt I needed to share it.

While it specifically addresses a case of extreme misogyny in the online gaming community, it is more widely applicable as good advice to all men on how to respond when encountered with extreme sexism.

I know many guys that may see it and may even acknowledge it, but they'll never actually say anything about it. It's a "that's not really my problem" attitude, overlying a more deeply engrained sometimes unconscious "bros before hos" mentality. Grow up friends, time to overcompensate with your humanity

Ill Doctrine: All These Sexist Gamer Dudes Are Some Shook Ones from ANIMALNewYork.com on Vimeo.

Why Do You Believe?

I often get into debates with people about religion, sometimes heatedly (usually when the person I am speaking to is being arrogant and thick-headed), other times for the simple reason that I am curious as to why they believe what they do (when the person is nice, non-judgemental and otherwise seems quite intelligent). Recently I have had two such discussions with two people, which started amicably enough with me pointing at all the places the bible contradicts the “free will”, “god is love”, “justification for baptism” etc. arguments, which brought us directly to the central question of why the hell do you believe anyway? It always comes down to that, as it is impossible to continue the conversation without first establishing a sans-goal-post-shifting basis for the argument. They both happened to respond with an answer that is supposed to be a conversation stopper, an “oh well, this is where we agree to disagree and amicably go our separate ways” response.

I believe because I feel it, I feel something inside me when I pray

How shocked were they then, when all of a sudden I got a little frustrated with them, not only not accepting it as an end of the conversation, but rather answered

That’s not a fucking answer!

I was amazed that this was the first time that they had someone not accept that ridiculous answer. While I am sure many of you are fully aware as to why that is, but for those of you who have not thought too much about it, let me elaborate for you as I did for them:

Here we need another pinning down of what you do and do not believe. Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe in aliens visiting the earth? How about vampires? No? Well, trust me, there are people that do. Many of them believe because they feel it. They feel the presence of their departed mother or spouse or pet, and therefore believe that their spirit is still walking the earth and keeping them company. There are people that are absolutely convinced that they were abducted by aliens and there are people that are sure vampires really exist, because they feel it. Why then, do most people in the world not accept those personal feelings as proof of the existence of ghosts, aliens or vampires? Because personal feelings are subjective, of course they are. You need external, objective evidence to back up these things in order to be justified in believing them. Personal opinion has no bearing on reality. Without objective evidence you can find other more plausible explanations for these feelings: that you’re grief over losing a loved one and being in the house you shared with them causes you to feel like they’re still there, that you suffer from sleep paralysis, that you really want live to be a little cooler.

If you accept someone’s personal feelings about what they believe, then you’re not allowed to scoff at ghosts, faries, aliens, vampires, or any other such fantasy. Going even further, if “I believe it exists because I feel it” was a valid argument, any hallucination a schizophrenic person has ever had exists too, from the voices to the people they see. This is why “I believe in God because I feel Him” does not qualify as a good reason to believe in God, not by a long shot.

And anyway, this personal fuzzy feeling you have inside is not only a terrible reason to believe in a god, but how in the hell did you jump from “warm fuzzy feeling” to “the God of the bible as interpreted by the Vatican”?! How do you know that your personal feelings are “evidence” for that specific god, and not Zeus, Thor or Buddha?

One of them did not have an answer, mostly because she is swaying away from theism and is honestly trying to identify the source of this “feeling” that is keeping her from really calling herself an atheist. The other one used “it’s a matter of faith” as the centre for all the circles he began to spin in. But that’s a whole can of worms for another time.

Book Review: The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks

As you may have noticed I have been reading a lot of books lately, but this one by far has to be my favourite. It was one of my Professors that recommended it to me, so interested I bought it.

Anyone who has studied biology has heard of HeLa cells. They are the most important cell line we have, they have been the subject of countless experiments and have been invaluable to modern biology and medicine. This is the story of the woman from whom these cells came, the only woman that can be said to have reached anything close to immortality. I was expecting the book to be interesting if a little dry and perhaps tedious in some parts. From the first page, however, I realized that I was sorely mistaken.

This book really tells four stories, all expertly wrapped up into one novel. The first is who was Henrietta Lacks? What was she like, what did she like to do? The second story is a history of medical research and HeLa cells, what they did for biology and what medical research was like before the 1950s. The third is the journalist’s own story, how she found Henrietta’s family and her struggle to reach out to them. The fourth is one about bioethics, and it poses a very interesting question: is it ethical to take someone’s cells, and sometimes profit from them, without their knowledge or consent? Do we own the tissue that is surgically removed from us, even if it is usually discarded? Do we have a right to say what happens to those cells or tissues once we voluntarily have them removed from our bodies?

Starting from the beginning, as soon as I read the introductory remarks I knew it was the book for me.

This is a work of nonfiction. No names have been changed, no characters invented, no events fabricated. (…) Anything written in the first person in Deborah Lacks’s voice is a quote of her speaking, edited for length and occasionally for clarity. (…) Whenever possible I conducted multiple interviews with multiple sources to ensure accuracy.”

This is my kind of book, and the kind I hope to write myself some day. No embellishment, no omissions, just straight fact. I liked it already, and the rest did not disappoint.

Other than being a fantastic read, there were a few parts of the book that really opened my eyes, for better or for worse. As a scientist I used to get very annoyed with people like my mother who viewed everything and anything that comes out of a lab with a veil of mistrust, with a subconscious feeling that scientists are amoral robotic entities that never consider the ethical ramifications of their actions. I used to think that this was largely due to the horrific way that scientists have been portrayed both by the media, in movies and by the screams and shouts of people that do not understand the science they are publicly blasting, like creationists or anti-vaxers. After reading this book, however, I realized how stupid I was to think that. I have had the good fortune of coming into an international scientific community where bioethics is an extremely important part in everything we do. There are committees that make sure that every experiment you conduct is by the book. If you are using animals in your research, you have to demonstrate that you are using the minimum possible number of animals to get a statistically significant result, that you are housing the animals in the most optimal way possible and that you are never causing the animals unnecessary harm or suffering. If you are conducting clinical trials you have to demonstrate that you have the patients’ full understanding and consent, that they know they can drop out of the study at any time, that you do not admit patients that are at high risk of dying during the study if they are placed in the control group, that all patients including the ones that received the placebo get treated at the end of the study if the drug has proved effective, that the drug does not present high risk of extreme side effects (as demonstrated by animal tests and previous clinical trials) and that any side effect you suspect the drug might have is communicated to the patients. This is the state of biomedical research as of now, but in my grandmother and mother’s day none of this existed, and the scientific community is still feeling the ramifications of the terrible reputation it earned itself in those days. Whether it be experimenting on poor African Americans causing them to die horribly despite having the means to sure them or injecting patients with cancer cells without their consent, I was horrified at what was deemed acceptable to these researchers that I can only describe as sociopaths. I do not know a single person that would ever defend the experiments that were so casually and callously performed only 60 years ago, and that made me ask myself: Is it that even then they were very rare but they became famous due to their horrific deeds, or is it that the new bioethical systems in place make the scientific community less attractive to a god-complexed fame-hungry sociopath, who thus chooses a different career path?

The aspect of this that really made me think is the issue of the ethical implications of tissue research. The people that argue against “rights” for tissue donors made two important points: 1. That the person from whom the cells or tissues are taken are not actually doing anything, it is the scientists that put in all the hard work to culture them, modify them, experiment on them and find all the optimal ways to do these things. These cells could thus be considered their “intellectual property”, they are the ones that invested the money to work on them and thus they are the ones who should benefit from any reward. 2. Informed consent is one thing, but when you start saying “I want my cells to be used in this research but not in that other research but not if the research might be used for that purpose” it can mean a halt in research, because it all becomes exceedingly complicated.

I get both points, but it is definitely not as simple as that. Admittedly HeLa cells are a special case. They are sold all over the world, and you’d be hard pressed to find a cellular biology lab that does not have vials of HeLa cells in their freezers. There is a lot of money made on selling them, and yet Henrietta Lacks’s family lives in extreme poverty. Her daughter, Deborah Lacks, sums up my feelings on this:

Truth be told, I can’t get mad at science, because it help people live, and I’d be a mess without it. I’m a walking drugstore! I can’t say nuthin bad about science, but I won’t lie, I would like some health insurance so I don’t got to pay all that money for drugs my mother’s cells probably helped make.

I can’t ignore how the injustice this situation makes me feel, that while without the minds that made HeLa cells possible should undoubtedly get the credit for what they accomplished, Henrietta’s family should not be unable to pay for their own medical expenses.

The second point that is brought up is one that I understand, although I do not think it needs to be that complicated. I think that over bureaucratising cell research could cripple biomedical research, it does not have to be an all-or-nothing debate.

I definitely believe in informed consent, and I don’t think that it needs to be complicated. Personally, I think that the bioethical problem can be summed up with two forms, two consent measures. 1. Consent to use your cells or tissues in research, whatever the research might be, without going into the details of what research is acceptable and what research is not. The patient should know what those research possibilities are and decide whether or not they accept them. 2. Consent to profit from said cells, which is only something that crops up in a handful of cases. At this stage, you can stipulate a base percentage that goes to the patient – not one that is negotiable, but one that is stipulated by law, say 15%. The patient gives consent that his or her cells can be used for financial gain with 15% of that gain going to them, yes or no.

Read the book then tell me what you think. Is it too simplistic, still too complicated, or at least far better than the total lack of legislation we have in this regard at the moment?