Who Is Responsible For Words, Over Actions?

When it comes to criticizing Islamic beliefs and trying to pin down how much blame to put on the words of the Qu'ran that terrorists claim to be killing in the name of, I often find myself wavering between different viewpoints. While I very much disagree with Sam Harris and what is, in my opinion, his rather pigheaded way to approach the issue, I'm also not on the wishy-washy liberal "religion of peace" apologetics that you often hear on the other side. I definitely agree that the reasons behind terrorism are complex, multifactorial and not as simple as just pointing to a holy book and saying there! Problem solved.

The reason I bring this up is because I constantly think about this issue as it is brought up. The most recent episode of the Non-Prophets did just that when discussing the reasoning behind the Chapel Hill shooting, where an atheist shot and killed three Muslim neighbors of his, although whether "in the name of atheism" or not still remains to be determined. The hosts bring up the fact that there is no atheist dogma, and thus there is nothing inherently "in" atheism which permits, condones or encourages violent actions against others, unlike most monotheistic religious texts. This I totally agree with, but then the discussion went one step further. Russell talked about how he went to a seminar on Islam in Austin, and how while he thought their beliefs were weird, he did not feel like it was in any way reasonable to hold them responsible for the Charlie Hebdo shootings, any more than it is to hold atheists responsible for the recent shooting in North Carolina. To this Jeff hesitated, saying he didn't feel the same way, because of what was said before: Muslims have a holy book which contains violence, and atheists don't.

While he did not say it in so many words, he sort of implied a shared responsibility of Muslims towards what is written in their holy texts, if not for the individual actions of the religious followers themselves. While it is obviously not any of the Muslims alive today who are responsible for writing them, a question could be raised as to how much responsibility you have for what is written in the text that you claim to believe is the word of god.

This idea that Muslims are somewhat responsible for what their religion says is something that is also very prevalent in the right wing. This huffing and puffing about every single Muslim individual and group in American having to openly and publicly denounce every single terrorist act committed anywhere in the world before they are allowed to speak a single word in public (which many of them do, despite the fact that, in my opinion, its not their responsibility) is something seen often on Fox and the like. This got me thinking, at what point are you responsible for the words of others? They claim to believe that this text is the word of god, that is true, but there is no picking and choosing with holy books. You have to either take the whole thing or nothing. The right wing would never take responsibility for every word of the Bible (I doubt many of them believe that cotton-polyester blends are an abomination), and yet they do place a good deal of responsibility of what is written in the Qu'ran at the feet of Muslims. My question is, how fair is it to claim that someone who has not written a text has responsibility for what it says and, by extension, what others do with those words?

And, for consistency's sake, how fair is it to lay responsibility down at the feet of a person who actually did write the words in question?

Ladies and Gents, remember Bill O'Reilly?

So Bill was famously in the middle of a little controversy (and now finds himself in the middle of a larger one, but one thing at a time) involving his coverage of an abortion provider named Dr. George Tiller. O'Reilly repeatedly referred to Dr. Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer", along with dehumanizing him in many different ways. Once Dr. Tiller was murdered O'Reilly, never one to back down, defended his use of the term and his campaign against this man.

I despise Bill O'Reilly, so any opinion of mine on his share of the responsibility for Dr. Tiller's murder would be tainted. However, what I am asking for is consistency. 

If you think that someone who didn't write the words in their text, but simply believes in its holiness, should share some responsibility for others' actions in the name of that text, then you definitely, definitely have to think that O'Reilly, who actually composed these words, shares responsibility for what was done to Dr. Tiller. 

By the way: I in no way am comparing Jeff from the Non Prophets to Republicans, or in any way suggesting that he believes that Muslims share responsibility for the actions of terrorists. He was simply the spark that ignited this train of thought.

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.

Thinking Scientifically, Always

I work in the science field, so I know all too well that scientists and atheists are pefectly capable of cognitive dissonance and all kinds of backwards thinking that we often accuse others of doing. Although we are human, of course, we should know better given our training, so it makes me so angry when I see people in my field of work not applying their critical thinking skills to anything outside of the particular experiment they happen to be working on.

In this case I suppose I shouldn't have expected much more, since the person in question is also a die-hard Catholic (albeit one with an extensive historical knowledge and very much a "the whole thing is one big allegory and full of copying errors so it's all to be taken with a grain of salt" type Catholic). Still, she was perfectly able to crawl right under my skin when I happened to bring up how disgusted I am with what is going on in Greece.

In case you haven't heard, A 27 year-old man in Greece has been arrested and faces up to 2 years in prison for making fun of a Greek Orthodox monk, Geron Paisios. He created a Facebook page in which he called the monk Geron Pastitsios, a type of Greek lasagna, possibly using it as an extended parody linking the monk to Pastafarianism. To face 2 years in jail for something so asinine is ridiculous and something I expect of Iran or Saudi Arabia, not the country that invented democracy. My colleague doesn't agree, or rather, she doesn't believe it.

"Greece is a civil country", she says, "so he must have done something far worse than what you think. You're an idiot if you think that online newspapers are 100% reliable, so he must have said something horrible. Besides, you're not allowed to offend people, you can sue someone for saying terribly offensive things, maybe that person doesn't go to jail but there is a precedent in other civil countries. So, whatever, I'm sure he deserves it".

Oh deary me. A part from her horrible mangling of free speech and libel laws, the core of her argument is so rotten I almost fell out of my chair. What in the hell kind of scientist are you?!

You don't get to work your way backwards from a conclusion, I tried to explain. Of course you can't assume that newspapers have all of their facts straight, but that is entirely besides the point. We have a certain amount of evidence: I have read many articles about this, and they all say the same thing regarding his "crimes". With the evidence that we have, my conclusion is that no, Greece is not behaving like a "civilized country", not even close. That does not mean that this conclusion cannot change based on new evidence that can arise later, however I really don't care how mercilessly he poked fun at the guy, he could have inserted the guy's face into this NSFW cartoon and plastered it all over Facebook, unless he credibly threatened followers of the cult or some similar real crime was committed, my conclusion remains the same: Greece is not to be considered "civilized" so long as they have these totalitarian laws.

You know what the real problem is? Even putting it in the hypothetical: let's say that all he really did was call this guy a pasta name. Let's say for the sake of argument, it is 100% confirmed that that is all he did. Would you be willing to revise your conclusion then? Her answer was still no.

This is about not wanting to see what lies in front of you, not about not being able to or not knowing how. It's about her being religious, and she wouldn't want anyone calling Ratzinger Pope Spaghetti, so she just wont admit that one of the core and most important principles of a free country are being slowly but surely crushed underfoot. 

And ultimately, this is about not thinking what you do in life has any importance outside of the lab. If I was to think in this way regarding an experiment she'd be the first to kick my legs out from under me in utter disgust. 

I, on the other hand, was attracted to this line of work specifically because I value the importance of thinking scientifically, and I think it is the best, most fair, most objective and therefore most humble way to view life.

If you ever see me working backwards from a conclusion, slap me.

Ladies And Gents, Meet Bosses 4 and 5

Just like they said in the TYT video I saw on this subject this morning, I LOVE that it is football athletes that are being this vocal in support of gay marriage, that they are painstakingly breaking the stereotype that it's "unmacho" and "uncool" to support gay rights. Although linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo came out in support for gay marriage back in 2009, it is a more recent video that seems to have sparked a juicy controversy.

Oooh Emmett C. Burns Jr. did not like that. He was incenced that a football player from a team he actually likes could do something so offensive!!! He wrote the following letter to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens, the team this awesome athlete plays for:


"As a Delegate to the Maryland General Assembly and a Baltimore Ravens Football fan, I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo, would publicy endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically, as a Raven Football player. Many of my constituents and your football supporters are appalled and aghast that a member of the Ravens Football Team would step into this controversial divide and try to sway public opinion one way or the other. Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment and excitement. I think Mr. Ayanbadejo should concentrate on football and steer clear of dividing the fan base. 

        I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football Franchise Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbedejo is doing. 

      Please give me your immediate response "



Emphasis my own.

Dude, what the Hell do you think you're doing?! You're a Democrat, and a black man from Jackson Mississippi!!! Are you serious? Do you need someone to explain the definition of the word irony, or hypocrisy?!

Actually no need, cause while Ayanbedejo may have been the first NFL player to speak publicly about this issue, he's got one more on his side, Vikings punter Chris Kluwe fires back with this awesome open letter:



"1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees,” more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about penis? “Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole."

Ooh how I love it! I really hope the guy writes back, though I doubt it. Most importantly I hope that he royally shot himself in the foot with his constituents over this matter, and I hope that anyone that voted for him, even if they agree with him on the gay marriage issue, kick his ass out of office for his abhorrent views on the First Amendment. 

Is that too much to hope for? He is (technically) in the Democratic Party after all....

It's Still Sexism, And It's Still Disgusting

Hopefully the last post I'll make inspired by my recent cult documentary fascination. 

I stumbled across this documentary that was not really about a cult at all, but rather about a brutal murder that happened in a small town in Northern Italy which may have had some "Satanic" influences, probably popping up in my searches since the word "cult" and "Satanism" go hand in hand for many. However I decided to watch it, since it happened in Italy, it obviously made very big news in its day but I had never heard anything about it. 

So, what is the gist of it?

A nun is brutally murdered in a small town in Northern Italy - oh my, who could do such a terrible thing to such an undeserving victim no less? Turns out it was the absolute last person, or I should say people, you would ever expect. Three teenage girls, bound together by blood ritual, friendship and boredom, decided to savagely kill an innocent woman.

Here is where the documentary turns south in my opinion, into a hatchet job that did not do the Italian justice system any favors whatsoever.

Impossible! Cries the town. Three sweet, innocent little girls could never do such a thing! There must have been a ring leader! There must have been someone pulling the strings! And they decide to blame..... Marylin Manson. I shit you not. How fucking embarassing. 

Disclaimer: I do not like Marylin Manson. I don't particularly enjoy his music, and while I understand it was done for publicity purposes I still think you cross a line into sick when you name yourself after Charles Manson. However I have seen him in interviews before: he's a smart guy, he knows his stuff and I can respect that he fills a niche for the disenfranchised youth he represents. Having said all that, he is an entertainer. He writes songs, and however twisted some of his lyrics may be, no song is going to turn an innocent little girl into a cold hearted psychopathic murderer.

Yes Carabinieri, there probably was a ring leader in that trio as there usually is in cases like this, and you want to know who it probably was? One of the fucking teenagers. Probably not the one who expresses remorse in the end, but it almost certainly was one of them. True, there are far fewer sociopaths among women than there are among men, but that does not mean that they do not exist, and I'd bet my lunch money one of those three girls was a narcissistic sociopath. 

It profoundly disgusted and embarrassed me that the justice system in my own country could be so obtuse as to not conisder this, but desperately scrambled to find some outside, patriarchal source to blame. If it had been three Tunisian teenage boys to commit the murder, would they ever have considered blaming their actions on the music they listened to?! Fuck no. And I'll tell you something else, they damned well wouldn't have gotten a meagre 8 year prison sentence for something so heinous. 

Sexism is sexism is sexism, no matter how you slice it, it disgusts me and it needs to be addressed. I wish my country was better than this, and I can only hope we're steadily improving.

Repost: Sign This Petition!

Alas I am not (officially) American, so this petition cannot be signed by yours truly, but when I saw it posted on Pharyngula I thought FINALLY we're discussing this seriously! I've been blabbing about this for ages, and people either didn't believe it was happening or knew it was happening and didn't think anything could be done about it. I'll let PZ Myers explain:

You know, if I violated tax law and then flaunted the fact to the IRS, it’s pretty much guaranteed that I’ll get slammed down hard and fast. So why do churches get a free pass?

Since 2008, pastors of some churches have openly supported and advocated specific political candidates in sermons to members in early October in an event referred to as "Pulpit Freedom Sunday". According to Reuters, videos of these sermons are sent to the offices of the IRS.
According to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the provision of the tax code from which these churches derive their tax-exempt status, a compliant organization must not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of … any candidate for public office."
The IRS has failed to remove the tax-exempt status of these churches despite their violations of tax code. This must change, and the law must be applied equally to everyone.

Don’t you suspect that many of the officers obligated to enforce the law are also members of these same kinds of churches, and are motivated to neglect their duties by a conflict of interest?

Maybe there should be a requirement that all IRS agents be atheists. That would certainly improve the popularity of atheism!

I am fully aware that PZ has a gargantuan following and does not need my help, but this glaring hypocrisy and injustice is something I care about and I want to spread the word as much as I am able to:

SIGN THE PETITION! (If you believe in the cause, of course)

Oh, and read Pharyngula (if you don't already do), tis awesome

My Little Head-Rant

Last weekend I was in Rome, as usual, and while I was on the bus I heard a very strange noise that immediately caught my attention.

“…I mean you have to understand, 50% of people don’t pay any taxes! I mean I pay my taxes, you know? But 50% don’t… I mean people want everything to be free, but someone has to pay for it, you know?”

Quiet kids! It is the mating call of a very, very rare species indeed, it’s a Republican outside his own country! The poor English-speaking Italian he was yammering to was nodding his head politely, clearly not well informed in US politics (and why should he be) and taking this man’s word for it. I was incensed, as I always am in the face of blatant misinformation, and went off on an in-my-head-rant aimed at his fat head.

Actually, just under 50% of people in the United States don’t pay federal income taxes, but that’s not the only form of taxes that exist and it is blatantly dishonest to pretend that it is. Those people too poor to pay federal income taxes still pay sales tax, payroll tax, so don’t pretend like they are too lazy to contribute to society. You’re talking about students and people that are poor, how about the multimillion dollar churches that don’t pay a cent in taxes?

And don’t you come to this country whining about it being inconceivable to be able to sustain what I can only assume you mean free health care. We have a public health care system, and for all its problems we would never choose to live without it. The mere presence of a public health care system helps keep down the costs of the private sector as well as ensuring that the private sector offers a more speedy and efficient service, or else people would just rely on the public one and the private companies would go out of business. Instead, you guys have allowed monopolies to form causing the US to have one of the worst health care systems of the Western World, indicated by your low life expectancyrates, high infant mortality rates, and overall crap efficiency despite how much you spend on health care per capita. But what do you care, right? Who gives a crap about children dying as a result of a broken health care system. It’s just poor people, disproportionately minorities, right? Nothing to do with you, it doesn’t affect you. That kid should have though twice before being born poor. It’s not like its mother couldn’t get an abortion if she couldn’t afford to have a child right? Oh wait, let me guess, you’re one of those people that would just as soon not allow that woman have the right to terminate her pregnancy. “Life” is only important to you before it becomes an actual person right? It’s shameful, pathetic and painfully obtuse.

OK so I took a few assumptions regarding his positions there, but there are enough people in the US that do hold the positions I was alluding to that I felt justified in my head-rant. It all took about 3 minutes of me probably giving him a dirty look, but he didn’t notice me and got off at the next stop. I’m not sure whether it was better or worse that I wasn’t standing right next to him and thus blurting this all out to his face, since where I was sitting I would have had to climb over a lady and cross the bus to rant at him, which seemed excessively agro to me.

What do you think? In the interest of setting the poor soul he was yakking to straight (despite the fact I’m sure he didn’t give a crap about the US’s tax problems), would you have crossed the bus? Would you even have said anything if you were standing right next to him?

Happy Valentine's Day! That's Right, I Said It

As the years go by I realize that this holiday has more people who hate it than those who don't. Why, do you ask them? Because it's a made up holiday! It's all about consumerism!! It's the florists and the card companies that profit!!! GRRRRR.

To which I respond yes, that's true. Only thing is, all holidays fit that description!

As most others, February 14th also has a vague religious root, but having a religious reason doesn't make you any more or less of a made-up holiday. The 25th of December was bogarted from the pagans in an attempt to convert more of them to Christianity, the logic behind it being that they would be warmer to the idea if they didn't have to give up the holidays they already had. Halloween is based on the pagan All Hallow's Eve, which was a sort of New Years and when they believed that the veil between the physical world and the spiritual world was at its thinnest. Your birthday is an arbitrary day on which you celebrate having made it for another year on this planet, though in reality you get no older on the day of your birthday than you do any other day of the year. Same goes for January 1st. So honestly, who the hell cares if it was made up or not?

Valentine's Day is a good excuse to do something spontaneous and romantic for your lover, which is especially useful for couples that have been together for the long haul and maybe their romantic life has gotten to be a little routine. Christmas is an excellent excuse to really think about your friends and family, choose a gift you think they'll love, be together with them and have fun. Easter is an excellent excuse to eat a load of chocolate without feeling guilty, and Mardi Gras is a great excuse to have a really raucus partAY. Your birthday is a day for you to feel special, and for you to get to do whatever the hell you want to do and your friends have to go along with it because, after all, it is your birthday. New Years is an excellent excuse to go out with your friends, get smashed and have a blast. Well, can't you do these things on any day of the year? Of course you can! But it's always nice to have a little reminder in the calendar that you are long overdue a nice present for your mom, or a candlelit dinner for two to tell your lover how much you love them.

The holidays you prefer will depend on what they mean to you, what childhood memories you associate with those dates, what you enjoy doing on those specific days. You don't have to love them all, just acknowledge that a specific day of the year is only as special as you want it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

So please, chill out! Don't want to give your money to that greedy corporate hallmark? Then fucking don't! Make your own card! Or don't give a card at all, just spare me your snide remarks, you who shits all over February 14th but starts putting up the Christmas tree in October.


Disclaimer: I actually hardly give two shits about V Day, I'm just making a point :)

The $100 Challenge - Part I

So a while ago I got sent this video from youtube user modernitaly inviting me to take his 100 dollar challenge

 His terms are very simple: answer the three questions in the description using whatever sources or help you need. If you are able to answer the questions he will give you 100 dollars. The only catch is that you cannot use the answers that he lays out in his other videos, which I think is fair. Now I don't know how serious this guy is, or if he'll creationsist-style plug his ears and refuse to concede that any opinion other than his own has merit, and I highly doubt I'll ever get paid, but why not give it a shot anyway. Also it should be noted that I have not watched his videos because I wanted to approach these questions from a fresh, nonbiased (apart from my own personal bias) perspective. If I do wind up repeating some of the things that he has said in his videos then I apologize and be assured it was done accidentally.

So, without further ado, let's take a look at question number 1:

At the time of the Renaissance in Italy was the Catholic Inquisition and the Counter Reformation. All the representatives of the Renaissance Culture, in Italy, have been persecuted and censored, including those survivors of Michelangelo and Galileo. Maybe the Renaissance Culture was Contemporary to the Catholic Inquisition, and to the Catholic Counter-Reformation, but have nothing in common. What I want to know is how the Renaissance Culture turned up to be glory and pride of the most Catholic Civilization of the Planet? How did the Renaissance culture turned up to be intellectual legacy of the persecutors of the Renaissance Culture?

Hmm.. well, first of all I really have to be annoying and point out the error of referring to Italy as being "the most Catholic Civilization of the Planet". It is a common misconception, seeing as the Pope lives in Italy (well, he lives in a tiny independent state that is surrounded by Italy), but in fact Italy is far from being the most Catholic country there is. Brazil has the world's largest Catholic population, followed by Mexico. While Italy has a very high percentage of people that define themselves as Catholic, only one third of them (36.8%) say they are active members. Compared to other Catholic countries, Italy is not on the top of the list when it comes to Catholicism.

That covered the question is really divided into two questions: how did the Renaissance culture turn out to be the glory and pride of the (quite catholic, though not most catholic) Italy, and how did it become the intellectual legacy of the persecutors of the Renaissance culture (by which I think he means the Vatican itself)?

Tiny overview: The Renaissance (in Italian "Rinascimento" meaning "reborn") was a cultural movement that most agree was born in Florence and later spread throughout Europe. It is when Europe slowly and painstakingly pulled itself out of the Dark Ages, and is characterized by a surge in everything from literature, art and music to philosophy and science. Of course the Catholic Church did not like that. People thinking for themselves? Trying to figure stuff out objectively instead of blindly following and believing everything that the Vatican officials claim is truth? Fuck that. Although the Catholic Inquisition was born some time before, it suddenly found it had a whole lot to do.

Now the Vatican has never been anything but cunning. When you see the times changing you have to change along with them without ever losing control. That is what brings me to the second factual error that I feel obligated to point out. It is not correct to state that every single person representative of the Renaissance was persecuted by the Vatican. Michelangelo, one of the men that most represents the Renaissance period, was commissioned repeatedly by various Popes for everything from Basilicas to the freaking Sistine Chapel. If you ask people "name a Renaissance man" they say Leonardo da Vinci, and he was entirely left alone by the Vatican.

The Vatican left you alone so long as you didn't rock the boat all too much. So long as you didn't come up with any discovery or philosophical argument that was contrary to the teachings of the Church you were pretty much alright. This is why it was the scientists and the philosophers that really got the brunt of the Church's wrath during the Renaissance period. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his scientific and philosophical pursuits, while Galileo had to renounce his findings and spend the rest of his life under house arrest to avoid the same fate. So back to the question, why is the Renaissance the cultural pride of Italy?

Well, because these people were Italian. Some were dissenters, others were not, but there none of that makes them or their contributions to humanity any less Italian. It is not fair to equate Italian culture with the Institution of the Vatican. What about us atheists, or Catholics by name but not in practice? How can you say that Italian history has to agree with Catholic doctrine to be a source of pride for all Italians?

The second part of the question is how it became the intellectual legacy of the Vatican. Well, is it? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it is, is that really all that surprising? Religious institutions are wonderful at stealing things created or invented by others and incorporating them into their doctrine. The 25th of December, the Christmas tree, most of the story of Jesus' life, all stolen from other religions and incorporated into Christianity to make the religion more palatable to people wanting to convert. In the 19th century the Bible was used by many Americans to morally justify the use of slavery, but nowadays they would be crazy to suggest that slavery is moral because the Bible says so. It is the same with the Vatican and they've been doing it for centuries. At first they fight change, but when they see that the battle is lost and there is no longer any possible way to logically deny them they change their mind and declare that now everyone can believe in it and it doesn't actually go against the Vatican doctrine at all. They did it with Galileo's findings, evolution, anything that became demonstrable fact. Of course such an important part of Italian history would follow suit. Since when is hypocrisy something that the Catholic Church avoids? That shit is their bread and butter!

Making The Distinction Between Personal Belief and Being Flat Out Wrong: Part III

With the gay marriage debate raging on in many parts of the world right now I am going to come right out and say the obvious. If you don't think gay marriage should be legal you are a homophobic hypocritical bigot. That's right, I said it, and I stick by it.

But CE, I just don't believe in gay marriage! I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's just my view, my opinion, you can't condemn me as a bigot just for disagreeing with you. You're right, I can't, however you can still believe all those things and still think it should be legal. Once again I am just asking for a little consistency.

Let's take a Catholic as our example, simply because I am quite familiar with Catholic doctrine and its belief system is quite standardized thanks to the constant intervention of the Vatican in telling everyone what they officially believe. As a Catholic, you also don't believe in divorce. You don't believe in the validity of secular marriage, Muslim marriage (especially when a man is marrying a second wife), birth control, many things, but that does not mean that you believe that any of those things should necessarily be illegal. You may think it is immoral to get divorced, you may think that getting married outside of church is not a real marriage, but do you deny that it should be legal for others that do not agree with you and/or believe different things? You may never get divorced, but do you really think that the laws of your country should be based entirely on your religious doctrine?

If you do, you should move to Vatican City, or at least show a little consistency in your arguments. I will respect you more if you tell me that its not just gay marriage that should be illegal, but all marriage outside of the Catholic faith. The same goes for divorce, abortion, birth control, for everyone and not just for people who believe in what you do. You should ask that everyone in your country obeys your rules and believes in your God or get the fuck out, because that is what you believe. Sounds a little stubborn and pigheaded when put like that doesn't it? Well, it sounds just as pigheaded to the rest of us when you whine about gay marriage.

You are denying other people the same rights that you have because of how they were born. That in itself is reprehensible, but it becomes outright bigoted and hypocritical when you decide to pick on the gays and not on everything else you have an issue with it, hiding behind your beliefs to wiggle away from the label of bigot. Sorry, but you're not getting away with this one. Either you advocate for every single law in your country, ones that apply to everyone including those not of your faith, to obey the rules of your religion, or you understand that while you will not partake in the freedoms the laws of your land provide because you believe them to be immoral doesn't mean others should be kept from making their own choices. You can't have it both ways.

So if you are against gay marriage ask yourself why? Are you consistent, or are you just plain bigoted?

Tough Questions: Is Eating Meat Immoral?

Ever since I uploaded a Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode about PETA I've been getting a swarm of comments about the morality of meat eating, what I think about it, how I justify myself etc. Not only are 500character comments very limiting, I am also getting extremely tired of repeating myself. Prompted by waking up this morning to the longest PM I've ever seen, I've decided to explain myself once and for all here. If there are follow-up questions ask them here, but please don't ask me to repeat things I have already stated.

I am using the PM in question as a model for my answer as it seems to cover the basics of coming to an opinion on the morality of the subject.  To summarize the main questions that are being asked of me here, I guess they can boil down to the following:

1. How can you justify treating animals in a way that you wouldn't treat humans, when we are all related and species barriers are just an arbitrary distinction?
2. If you don't think it is morally wrong to kill an animal, why is it not morally wrong to kill a human being?
3. If you agree that animals suffer the way humans do, how can you support an industry that thrives on this suffering?
4. Since there are mentally retarded humans that have the same IQ as a cow or a pig, and you base your "OK to kill" morality on intelligence, either it is OK to kill retarded people or it is not OK to kill pigs.

If I have misinterpreted any of these points please correct me.

OK so this is what I think about the whole thing.

First of all, all of us make the distinction between things that are OK to kill and things that are not based on "intelligence", or rather neurological complexity, at some point. We are biologically related to every living organism on Earth, including plants and bacteria. Here, we are going to draw the line at animals that possess brains and are capable of feeling pain, for the sake of argument.

Secondly, it would be an incomplete answer without pointing out that there is a biological precedent for this opinion. Of course there is a biological precedent for giving your own species more importance than any other. It is the most natural thing that exists and there is no animal that would put the survival of an animal of a different species over one of its own. The instinct becomes even stronger when it comes to family members. While mathematically it makes sense that you should kill your sister, or mother, or son to save 10 other people, there are very few people out there that would be able to make such a choice. There is also a biological precedent for eating meat, we have evolved as omnivorous animals and as such it is a normal part of our diet. However, we have developed the neurological complexity necessary to be able to override these instincts in the pursuit of logic and morality, something that we are unique in being able to do as a species. So, given that we are smart enough to be able to figure out ways to survive without meat etc, can we still morally justify our doing so?

I responded that the thing I find to be immoral is causing animals to suffer, whether it be emotional or physical suffering, both for humans and other animals. We can agree that while humans hold first prize in being able to suffer emotionally (especially since right now we're talking about farm animals, not other more intelligent ones that are not routinely killed for food), other animals have the capacity to feel pain. That should not be done in my opinion. Great, so far we agree.

The problem that follows is the anthropomorphic idea that killing a farm animal is the same as causing it pain and suffering. I understand that the US is behind when it comes to legislation with regards to minimizing animal suffering, but in the EU and especially in Italy it is much simpler to buy meat from animals that have not suffered. First of all, EU regulations state that each farm animal be killed in a swift and clean way that does not cause them pain or fear. Cows are taken to a room and killed with a swift blow to the head delivered by an air-pressure gun which gives the exact amount of force necessary to instantly kill, removing human error that might stun the animal and cause it unnecessary pain. Pigs are walked into a chamber that contains CO2, they fall asleep and die without even knowing whats going on (this happens often enough with humans that we are sure its painless, people die in their sleep without even knowing what is happening). Chickens are killed with a swift electric current delivered to the neck, stopping their heart instantly and none of that running around with a snapped neck shit. When I drive past my favorite butchers at Testa di Lepre I can see the cows roaming around huge fields, just as nature intended. Here it is really not that hard to make sure you are buying meat that has lived a normal happy life until being killed in the most humane way possible. For this reason, I do not have a problem with buying and eating this meat. Compared with how their ancestors had it as being prey animals, being chased down (extremely scary) until exhausted and then having their throat gashed (if chased by a big cat) or being disemboweled and eating while still twitching with life (if chased by wild dogs) I'd say they have a pretty sweet deal.

OK so moving on to humans. As I said I do not agree with causing pain and suffering. If you kill a human being chances are you are causing them pain and suffering. Humans know what death is, that they are going to die, and they are often terrified of the idea. Killing a person for sadistic pleasure means by definition causing them pain and that is immoral to me. Even if you sneak up on them and smack them over the head you are still causing pain and suffering to that person's friends and family, just because it is emotional suffering it is still suffering. I also don't think you should kill any animal for no reason. What if you kill a person that has no friends, no family, no acquaintances whatsoever, by sneaking up on them and smacking them over the head so they don't know whats coming, cause them no pain, just kill them. Well what fucking sense would that have??! Apart from the obvious point that you would be extremely hard pressed to find a person that fit that description, I would be also astounded and morally outraged at someone doing the exact same thing to a stray dog. What the fuck would you even do that for? Now surely there is some residual instinct of putting your own species above all others, but there is also one other thing that sets humans apart. Humans are unique in that, because of the fact that they know their life is finite, they have the capability of making choices. I don't mean the choice between turning left or right that might incidentally affect your lifespan, I mean they can make a conscious choice with what direction to bring their lives in, and even to end it if they like. Call me crazy, but I don't like the idea of robbing a person of that choice, because I wouldn't want anyone to rob me of it either. That is why I am pro-euthanasia, I feel that just because someone is not physically capable of fulfilling that choice they should not be robbed of it.

That brings us full circle to the mentally disabled. Here I find a flaw in the science of talking about people with the intelligence of pigs. First of all it is pretty much impossible to give a pig an IQ test, but even if you could I really don't think its a fair comparison. Human brains are just different from pig brains in too many ways. For example, even if a person has the "problem-solving capabilities" of a pig (only for the sake of argument at this point, I am still waiting on any citation of a mental disorder that is said to put that person's intelligence on par with a pig's), would they still have the capability of emotional suffering and distress, of forming social bonds and interacting with humans. Also there are the people around them, parents and loved ones that care for them to take into consideration. The only almost comparable situation could be someone in a vegetative or semi-vegetative state. Someone that is not capable of interacting with others, are not aware of the presence of their loved ones in a conscious way, someone with no hope of recovering the damage done to their brains. In these situations I am once again pro euthanasia if that is what the family wants.

This is my conclusion based on my moral logic. I do not think that others have to reach the same conclusion, because as I have said may times, morality is subjective. Many people morally object to my view on euthanasia, that's fine. All I ask is that your opinion be based on real facts, although I have already dealt with false facts surrounding vegetarianism here. It also irks me to be accused of having an opinion about something "just because", which I have also discussed before.

I hope I have been clear. If there is another aspect of this you want me to address, or I need to be more clear on something please let me know. Just please don't ask me to readdress something I have already stated because I wont.

Anyway, this is going to be my last post for the next four days seeing as I am taking that wonderful "immaculate conception" four day weekend and not taking my computer. If I come across one and I have something to say I might peek in before then, but if not I'll see you all on Monday

Tough Questions: Why Can't Men Hit Women?

As a continuation of yesterday's topic, I figured while I was at it to bring up an old argument that I used to hear in high school (where I was typically called a "feminist" as an insult) all the time. If you really believe that women and men should be treated equally, and that you shouldn't make any judgement on someone based on their gender, then why is it not as acceptable for a man to hit a woman as it is to hit a man? You can't have it both ways.

OK so let's put aside the argument "It's not OK to hit anyone". It's a silly excuse to avoid the real issue: it is absolutely true that it is socially acceptable for a woman to slap a man if he seriously insults her, but if a man slaps a woman when she's mouthing off it is atrocious, even for the majority of women that advocate equality. Is that wrong? Why or why not?

I had to think about this long and hard, the reason being that I did in fact occasionally get into physical altercations with the opposite sex. It began in elementary school when I put the smack down on the class bully who was actively choking my friend at the time for telling him to piss off. Since then my elementary school years were often spent pulling a bully off my friends' younger siblings and giving them a little taste of their own medicine. The bullies in the school were either my age or older, so my teachers never reprimanded me nor did they ever inform my mother, seeing as I was doing what they all wished they could. By the time I went to middle school, however, they had stopped physically bullying and the only kind of harassment that was thrown around was verbal, so the fights stopped. In high school I was still very much considered one of the guys and it was obvious that I was not afraid to throw down if the need ever came up. I defended a couple of my friends from harassment (both sexual and physical) on the streets and I was still the go-to-girl for this kind of vigilante justice. I suppose the fact that I was considered "between genders" in my teenage years made me the ideal person to ask this question, and it really made me think.

As I thoght about it, I came to two important realizations. First of all I realized that the more I was growing up, the more this taboo of hitting girls(/women) was growing, even in my own mind. The second realization was that while I wouldn't have minded if one of the aforementioned boys tried to smack me, because I would have made them regret it for the rest of their lives, I would have been morally outraged if they did the same thing to one of my "girlier" friends, and I would have made them regret it for the rest of their lives. With this second one, the reason for this disparity clicked in my mind.

As I was growing up, the physical disparity between the sexes started becoming more apparent. While girls and boys aged 7-11 are reasonably equally matched physically, they begin to diverge after puberty. This seems like the most obvious statement in the world, but it's at the heart of the whole issue.

The moral outrage doesn't come (at least doesn't from me) from a person with a penis hitting a person with boobs. It's about hitting a person that is not physically matched to defend themselves. I would be just as outraged to see a fully grown man hitting a young scrawny boy. It is the intent behind that slap that makes it. When a woman slaps a man for being rude, she is saying "I will not tolerate you degrading me like this. You are completely out of line and I want to shock you so you remember it". When a man hits a woman (or by extention, a scrawny teenage boy) for the same reason, that slap says "Know your place. You forget I am stronger than you, I can dominate you if  and whenever I choose. I have this power over you, so don't you think of saying something to set me off". The power dynamic is completely different.

I am a woman who has no qualms defending herself with her fists if need be. If a man who is physically matched with me raises his hands with the same intent that he would raise them with another man, that moral outrage disappears for me. If, on the other hand, I see a man raising his hands against a woman who is significantly weaker than him, or one that has been conditioned by society to not defend herself physically, and therefore if the intent behind that slap is the second one I have described, I'll go fucking nuts.

So, can men hit women? The answer is yes only if the intent behind bringing the confrontation to violence is the same as it would be if she were a man, if she has a good chance of defending herself and if she has just as much intention of escalating to that same level. In other words, the same morally justifiable rules that apply for physically engaging another man.

Not such an unequal concept after all is it?

Of Course You Think That; You're A Liberal

To which my initial gut reaction would be to reply "OF COURSE I'm a liberal, I'm not ignorant!!" But that's not completely fair. So let's explore:

I've been called a "liberal" in the form of an insult many times before, always of course by my American friends, seeing as it's not a dirty word outside the US. However a recent post from The Crommunist Manifesto made me think about this again when discussing the opening of an "Afrocentric" school in Toronto. The part that particularly brought this discussion back to my mind was this:

Liberal-minded folks across the province were left scratching their heads, caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, helping black students get a quality education is good. On the other hand, segregation is bad, and if we put all the black kids in one school, how will they learn to hold hands under a rainbow with the white kids? To be less snarky about it, isn’t segregation bad because it isolates students? Didn’t we fight against segregation of black students just a few decades ago?

Therein the characterization of liberal minded people lies. The idea that liberals are just as baboon-y in their liberalism as right-wingers are in their conservativism (that's not a word is it. Oh well, it is now). That's not to say that there aren't liberals that are like that, the kind that just hop on the bandwagon because it has a key liberal word in it without considering the issue. All I am saying is that I am not one of them.

I have not decided whether or not I'm for this Afrocentric school idea. It doesn't really matter to anyone but myself whether I agree or not since I don't live in Toronto. However, the reason I haven't made up my mind isn't because the idea has the two conflicting ideas of "help black community" and "segregation". It's because I don't know enough about it.

I think out my positions to death on every issue I have an opinion on, following my train of logic right along to a conclusion based on the information that I have. I can fully lay out that logical thought process for anyone in order to explain my conclusion, which is part of the reason that I started this blog. Also my conclusion is always subject to change if new information comes out, but it is not if the available information remains the same. I don't claim to have an opinion until I am firmly confident with my logical assessment of the information I have.

This little logical train of thought I have tends to lead to positions that coincide with the ones that liberals hold, therefore I define myself as a liberal. It's the same discussion as deciding which food group to place a food in. If I'm a steak I ma contain vitamin B-12 and some fat, but I'm mostly protein, so I call myself a protein. So I guess the question becomes why do I tend to come to liberal conclusions?

1. I have no religious preference. This means that what certain people preach about certain issues doesn't affect my thought process in the slightest

2. I don't hold on to cultural history. Just because something was done in the good ol' days doesn't make it right in my mind

3. I don't project what I want for myself on to what others should want for themselves. Just because I have no interest in gay sex or gay marriage doesn't mean I want to begrudge others the right to partake

4. I am aware that general consensus doesn't influence truth. Just because 600 years ago 100% of people thought the Earth was flat that didn't make it any more true then than it does now

5. And I think most importantly, I have to have a reason to think what I think about something. There's no such thing for me as having an opinion "because it feels wrong" or "because it's weird". That's not a conclusion. WHY does it feel wrong? If it's because of one of the aforementioned reasons then I reject the feeling and move on. If it's not then maybe there's something to it and I pursue it. But I can't just stop at "just cause", call it a day and claim it as my opinion, or worse vote for legislation supporting that opinion that may be completely unfounded.

I don't think things because I'm a liberal. This is not a chicken-and-egg complex. I think things first. Then I claim to be a liberal as a direct result of the things that I think. If you take a statement about an issue, worded the exact same way, and have a right-winger say it or a liberal I am one of those people that will agree or disagree with them equally, regardless of what they call themselves.

Where does your logic take you?

To Those Who Whine About Affirmative Action

When I was in high school I had a very strange, ignorant and slightly imbalanced French teacher (I'm not just saying that, the man threw a chair across the room and then calmly stated it was blocking the door so he had just saved all our lives if there was a fire). He had just discovered that there was such a thing as affirmative action in colleges in the US. He was outraged, and made us all copy down in French "In France all types of discrimination are against the law, even positive discrimination". I tried to explain to him how pigheaded that statement was, but I was 15 and couldn't speak french so I failed. Now I wish I could show him this video.

I wonder if he can give a similar talk on sexism too!

PZ posted this a while ago but I only just got a chance to watch it, since I usually read blogs (as well as write this one) on my lunch break at work where I can't turn the speakers on.

I find a lot of the arguments I make with people reflected in his talk, but two instances in particular popped back in to my mind while I was listening to this talk, both of which happened while I was living in Ireland.
I am not trying to insinuate that the Irish are a particularly racist people. As Tim Wise says, most people are perfectly well meaning, they just sometimes miss the point.

1. I came home one day to find my roommate in a bit of a huff, and his girlfriend gritting her teeth over his recent rant about what happened. I managed to find out that he had gotten in to a bit of a fight with a Bangladeshi employee at our corner supermarket, to whom my roommate finally shouted "WTF mate?! You don't see me coming to your country and trying to screw people! I don't have to stand for that shit in my own country! Fuck OFF!" I promptly adopted the same I-just-stubbed-my-toe expression his girlfriend was wearing. He got a little annoyed at me and said "well what?! I can't get mad at someone who isn't Irish for fear of being called a racist?! I didn't mean it in a racist way, I don't hate all Bangladeshis, but that guy was being a dick, he deserved it!" This warped rationalization seemed to also win his girlfriend over, since she felt his rant was a racist one though she couldn't pinpoint what part of it was the failure. I shook my head at both of them. You've missed the point entirely. "It was racist", I said, "because you went there. So he was being a dick, fine. What does the fact that he's from Bangladesh have to do with anything? A foreign person has no more or less of a right to be a dick than anyone else that lives here." This idea that each person outside of their own country (or, as it is in the US, outside of the racial majority) is representative of the country (or race) as a whole is ridiculous. If someone doesn't like me it would be ludicrous to assume that they would start distrusting or condemning all green-eyed people on the planet.

2.Another common grievance people had was with those damn foreigners coming to steal our jobs, particularly since the economy started to go down the toilet. However there is a law in Ireland which states that if you have two equally qualified people applying for the job, you have to hire the Irish person. Only if the foreigner is better qualified do they get the job. So what's the problem?
The problem is that in Ireland the minimum wage is very high, so many places liked to higher foreigners who were willing to work for less than that. That same roommate of mine worked in a hotel where he told me that Irish CVs were automatically thrown in the garbage because they would have to be paid the full minimum wage. It is no wonder then, he said, that the Irish are frustrated with these foreigners that are getting hired over them when they don't even speak English. If they'd just stop being let in the Irish would have more jobs. Another fail in logic.
I said to him, why are you getting pissed at the people that are just trying to make a better life for themselves? The people that are hiring them at below minimum wage are breaking the law. They're not supposed to pay foreigners any differently, they are taking advantage of them. Why aren't you directing your anger at the assholes that are breaking the law and not hiring Irish people, instead of getting pissed at the guy that just wants to make a little money to send home to his family?

Anyway, in conclusion, great talk. I get it, it extends beyond the US and highlights some global issues that need to be addressed. However just talking about them, putting them out there is already a huge step forward. After I demonstrated the flaws in his logic my roommate never made those arguments again. He was never a racist, he just never thought of it that way. Presenting things in a different light can make a huge difference to public opinion.

Boring in Life, Fascinating In Death

This is going to be a rather brief observation as I am currently sharing the lunch break I usually dedicate to this blog with my preparation of a presentation I need to give in a few hours.

I think about this every time I see the morbid fascination that surrounds a celebrity when they die, and now that it has come to my attention that the top selling book in the US at the moment is a biography of Steve Jobs, the age-old question comes back again: why, why WHY do we become so fascinated with people when they die? Why should our opinion of them change depending on whether or not they are alive?

Despite the title of this post I am not trying to insinuate that Steve Jobs was a boring person. His biography may well be quite interesting. However I don't pretend for a moment that it would be this discussed or widely purchased if it had not been released right after his untimely (though not unexpected) death. Is it weird that I don't suddenly find someone more interesting after they have died? Sure if someone dies completely unexpectedly, like Amy Winehouse or Brittney Murphy or Heath Ledger I might wind up thinking about them for a bit a couple days later and muse over what a shame it is, but it doesn't make me any more interested in buying a book about them or a movie they starred in.

A perfect example of this is when Michael Jackson died. After he dies all of a sudden everyone, even people who never liked him, started saying "oh well I never thought he was a pedophile anyway". What?? I'm sorry, although no one but the victims will ever be sure of what happened, my personal thoughts on the matter did not get knocked off course with the last beat of MJ's heart. That is ridiculous. I still think that he was guilty of what he was accused of, because I am not a hypocrite. I came to my conclusions based on what I knew of the case and what I heard from someone I knew who worked for him, not because I thought he was a freak or because I felt bad for him after he died unexpectedly. No new information regarding the case came out right before or after he died, and yet public opinion regarding his guilt suddenly shifted dramatically simply because he stopped breathing. Why?

I suppose I'll never fully understand it, although I do think that it can be done quite unconsciously by people and can change if they are made aware of it. Quite the same way some people let race unconsciously affect their judgement of people, which changes when they are made aware of it, I think many people don't notice how their opinions change about someone after their death. Compound that with an old cultural undertone of having "respect for the dead", this phenomenon has become easily exploitable from a marketing perspective.

Do you ever find yourself falling into this line of thinking?

Why Do You Care?

Despite my preference for scientific videos on youtube and my eventual plan to make a few of my own, I have avoided the subject of evolution and creationism directly on this blog. I was trying to create a place where actual debatable things could be discussed, things that rely strongy on personal logic, morality and philosophy. A denial of the veracity of natural selection does not fall in to that category, and there are people that have explained evolutionary theory and mechanisms over and over to the youtube community at large already. That isn't to say that if someone asked me directly a specific question with regards to a scientific matter that I wouldn't answer it to the best of my abilities, but that has not yet happened beyond a silly ID video posted as a response to Penn and Teller - Creationism Part 2, but that simply uses the classic argument "It's far too complicated for my brain to grasp, therefore it must be designed by something far mor intelligent than mere mortals". Beyond pointing out that that is a fallacy, and after he admitted that it was what he "believed" (as opposed to something he knew) there isn't really much to say about it.

So for these reasons I have not delved into the biology behind evolutionary theory, or explained certain mechanisms that may have been beyond some people's understanding. However, I still enjoy watching science videos, and if I see someone in the comments section that hasn't understood something I do tend to try to explain it to them. This has led to a question that I have been getting with increasing frequency, especially from my mother: Why do you care?

In all honesty my mother comes from a partially biased perspective. Of course she accepts science and evolution, but she sees my involvment with creationism being tightly linked with my atheism and as a personal attack on anyone or anything spiritual or supernatural. She therefore becomes unconsciously defensive if I say things like "have you heard that this has happened" or "did you see that this bill might pass" with regards to creationism, until she bursts. Why do you care what happens in a country that is not your own? Why do you waste your energy watching these videos and responding to comments? Why do you get so worked up over nothing?! What is your purpose here, just to attack someone's belief for no reason?!

Of course I can't say "wow Mom, since we've never been that close I was just fishing for conversation, and I thought of something I had heard about". But the question is worth answering: why do I care?

It's because I care about science and education. I feel that every human being should have a right to have access to good education if they want one, whether they live in the Congo or the USA. It's because I think that people have ignored creationists for too long, thinking them a part of a fringe minority not worth considering, and it was precisely that lack of interest which has allowed their faux science to spread into classrooms all over the world, particularly the US and the UK. I has been a lack of clarity from the science side that has allowed so many people to fall for deceitful creationist talking points leading to a whopping 46% of the US identifying themselves as young-earth creationists, and while it is not that high in the UK yet, the number grows.

This is just one of those examples of people thinking that certain topics should be handled with kid gloves just because they touch on religion. I know for a fact that my mother nor anyone else would get this upset with me if it was holocaust deniers that were gaining so much traction, nor would she ask me "why do you care what happens in a country that is not your own" if I had brought up what was happening in Zimbabwe or Iran. I have this terrible habit of giving a shit about things that are not necessarily firmly within my monkeysphere.

I enjoy teaching others and explaining things to them so that they can also experience the wonder and beauty of the natural world. I have a true passion for biology, which is why I have wanted to study it for as long as I can remember. I want to share my wonder and knowledge about fascinating things about the natural world the same way I want to share a movie, song or book that I found particularly moving with my friends and family. It's just part of my personality. I will never, ever be too busy or not feel like explaining something that I fully understand to someone who does not. Gee, I wonder why I wound up tutoring half my bio class in high school.....

Time to take the kid gloves off. Science is science, it shouldn't matter why someone doesn't get it when you attempt to explain it to them. And if you are one of those people that gets defensive when you hear about this sort of thing, try to really examine the reason for your discomfort. Is it because you avoid all subjects regarding education, or do you treat this particular one differently than you would someone who doesn't believe the holocaust ever happened, or that Mussolini and Stalin were actually great guys?