God is my Security Blanket

I have a 2 year old son, and he has a special blanket that he sleeps with. Whenever he is in his bed, the first thing he does is reach for his blanket.

We tried getting him a blanket that was almost the same as a backup, but he can tell the difference and will only sleep with the original, no matter how dirty or puked on the blanket is.

He has a heart felt belief that he needs this blanket to sleep, and the evidence is on his side. He does not sleep without it, he simply cries.

So what is it about this blanket that makes it so special? Is the blanket soaked in a chemical that triggers him to sleep? Does the blanket emit sleep-educing radiation?

I have a feeling I could run any number of test on this blanket and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the blanket does not cause my son to sleep, yet he won't sleep without it.

Then it dawned on me, my son has a "belief" that this blanket lets him sleep. Perhaps he feels the blanket offers security, or perhaps just comfort. In either case, it is his belief that allows him to sleep and the blanket is just the object of his beliefs in the real world.

My son has put his beliefs into this blanket in the same was a religious person puts their beliefs in god.

That daily prayer, that fish bumper sticker, that bible, it is all a security blanket to a religious person.

It is your belief in god that gives god power over your life, not the other way around.

Just like how my son believes his blanket is special, a religious believer thinks their faith in god is special.

The analogy doesn't end there either. I could rip that blanket away from my son and try to explain to him how he doesn't really need the blanket, the power to sleep was always inside him, but he would cry and not understand and want his blanket back so desperately.

I now feel the same way about a religious person's beliefs. I could rip that bible from there hand and explain to them how it's just a book of stories and all the power you feel coming from god is and always was inside you all along and you don't need god for it, but I think from past experience we would all see how that would end up.

You can's just rip the security blanket away from someone and have them take it well. They need to realize themselves that the blanket is no longer needed.

I am sure that as my son gets older, he will turn to his blanket less and less until one day he forgets about it in a closet and it will sit there for weeks or even months unnoticed.

It's not so easy for a religious person. They are reminded nearly daily to never abandon their security blanket without something horrible happening.

Imagine how my son would grow up if I shared his belief in his blanket. If every time he forgot it I scared him with stories of doom and gloom, if he always saw me with my blanket every night, if he saw me fight tooth and nail against anyone who ever said "it's just a blanket"

I guess the moral of the story is don't be so quick to snatch someone else's security blanket away from them for there own good, just live your life blanket-free and be an example that living without that blanket isn't so bad after all.

Privilege, from my perspective

I like to follow the goings on of the atheist movement and, with the addition of atheism+,  some new terms began to pop up in blog posts and YouTube videos

 

One term I have heard used over and over is privilege.

 

It seems that most people who find themselves in the minority will complain about the privilege of the majority. Women complain of the glass ceiling, blacks complain about police harassment, homosexuals complain about being denied marriage rights, poor people complain about being marginalized by rich people, the list goes on and on.

 

However, privilege does have another side.  Ask any first born child how it feels when baby number 2 comes home, and you can see how privilege cuts back.

 

Privilege is being an only child and not having to worry about sharing the spoils. To be privileged is to be free to use your resources to the fullest extent you wish without regards to anyone else

 

I feel privileged to have a high functioning mind, to have the ability to contemplate everything from the vastness of the universe down to the subatomic. I use my mental resources to the fullest extent I can and I avoid dumbing myself down for the sake of others. So anyone who automatically says all privilege is bad must also live below the poverty line and use only single syllable words or they would be using their privilege of financial resources and intelligence (something not everyone has), unless they have no problem with being a hypocrite

 

However, I can understand privilege from the other side as well.

 

When a Christian gets angry with me with not keeping “the Christ in Christmas”, that is an example of Christian privilege. Christianity had the majority in North America for so long, that the Christian way and the American way have almost combined.

 

The Christian’s of North America were an only child for decades, but now with the rise of atheism,  They suddenly need to learn to share and play nice where they never had to before.

 

So now I find myself in conflict. On one hand, I agree that it is good for my country and humanity as a whole for religious privilege to be reduced, especially where religion and government are tightly linked. However, I’m not so convinced that forcing all the rich people in the world to give away money until we are all equal is a good idea. It seems like every time that has been tried in the past, it never ends well.

 

So how do we square this circle? Perhaps not all privilege is created equal, but who has the right to decide?

 

Does the privileged class get to declare their privilege good and proper, or should the majority always bend to the will of the minority?

 

Perhaps someday I will have the answer, but not today.

 

 

The UN, Israel, and Palestine

I must admit, I don’t know much about the Israel/Palestine conflict. From what I hear my leaders in Canada say, we want a peace deal and a two-state solution.

 

So why is the UN giving Palestine recognition as a state a bad thing?  Call this arm-chair foreign policy, but this is how it seems to me.

 

Israel has no intention of allowing Palestine to be a separate state, but since the majority of the world seems to be in favour of a Palestinian state, Israel must pay lip service to the rest of the world by saying that are working towards peace and a two-state solution.

 

However, during this time of negation between Israel and Palestine, the Israelis kept building settlements in land that was disputed.

 

This would be like if my neighbour and I  had an argument over who owned some shared land between our houses, and every day that we meet to talk about it, my neighbour would move his fence a little closer to my house. So after years of talking and negotiating, even if we can come to an agreement, all the land is already behind my neighbour fence and I have a feeling he won’t give it back easily.

 

Are the peace talks that Israel and Canada and the USA all want just nothing more than a stall tactic to give Israel enough time to build enough settlements that there is no land left for a two-state solution?

 

And all this talk from Canada and the USA at the UN about how bad giving Palestine statehood seems very hollow to me. Peace talks have been broke off for years now, so Palestine decided to force the issue with the UN and now Canada and the USA among a few others started to threaten the UN with loss of funding and other various threats if they voted for Palestine.

 

What is so bad about giving Palestine statehood at the UN? It seems like the only major change would be that Palestine can now access the International Criminal Court, but why would the USA and Canada and Israel want to block Palestine from the ICC?

 

If my neighbour is stealing my land, why is so bad for me to get a lawyer on my side?

 

Is the Israeli end game to back Palestine in a corner so they have no choice but to sign a peace agreement that favours Israel, and now that Palestine has the UN and ICC in there corner, Israel might have to actually capitulate and negotiate on a level playing field?

 

Maybe I am way off the mark here, but it seems like the US, Canada, and Israel would be very happy to have Palestine just go away  and under the cover of unending peace talks, Israel is taking away Palestine one settlement at a time.

 

 

The joys of writing a blog that no one reads

I don't kid myself. I know my blog has somewhere between 0 and 1 readers (including myself), and I don't have a problem with that.

Having a following on my blog would almost feel like I would be required to make regular content and something that I do for joy and mild distraction would become a chore.

I can blog as often or infrequent as I wish without any complaint of feeling of neglect.

Perhaps at some point in the future my blog will have a sudden surge of popularity and I will then need to decide how to go forward

But for right now, I don't mind just talking to a brick wall.



- Sent From My Blackberry

A Charitable Thought Experiment

What makes a good charity to contribute too?

Do you need to agree with everything a charity does to donate in good conscience, or is it ok as long as it's mostly good?

To help us with our thought experiment,  lets imagine there is a charity called The Lifeline Corps

The Lifeline Corps is passionately committed to eradicating poverty and caring for people who are struggling.  The Lifeline Corps is working to address the dehumanizing scourge of poverty and injustice and educate the public about what it means to live in poverty – and what they can do to help.

So far sounds like a good charity right? Let's keep reading

The Lifeline Corps is an international organization that began its work in 1882 and has grown to become the largest non-governmental direct provider of social services in the country. The Lifeline Corps gives hope and support to vulnerable people today and every day in 400 communities across this country and more than 120 countries around the world. The Lifeline Corps offers practical assistance for children and families, often tending to the basic necessities of life, providing shelter for homeless people and rehabilitation for people who have lost control of their lives to an addiction.

Still sounds mostly good right?

Maybe now you would like to know more about this charity before you donate, so you read some of there positions, and you come across a position about marriage.

The Lifeline Corps holds the position that marriage is the covenanting together of one white man and one white woman for life in a voluntary union characterized by faithfulness, mutual affection, respect and support. It makes this view known in its published Position Statements

The Lifeline Corps anticipates that some will assert that the arguments advanced in this submission in support of the institution of marriage apply equally to mixed-race couples.

 The Lifeline Corps maintains that for important theological, philosophical, historical, social, legal, cultural and anthropological reasons, the institution of marriage ought not to be redefined in this way 

 The Lifeline Corps’s position on marriage is based on its understanding of what the Bible and Christian tradition teach about human relationships and sexuality.

As the union of a white man and a white woman, marriage has been embedded in the culture and tradition of the western world since the beginning of its recorded history. Redefining it to include mixed-race couples may appear to be a simple solution to a perceived present-day inequality, but the notion of marriage as an whites-only relationship is so deeply rooted in our society that its redefinition may have far-reaching effects on the future development of our society that cannot be predicted, while to do so will offend the conscience-driven position of the vast majority of married persons.

Some of you reading this may be taken aback now. How could any charity that sounded so good to begin with turn out to be a racist charity?

Would you donate your money to this charity? If you saw a Lifeline Corps member ringing a bell near a mall, would you give him your pocket change, knowing that it goes to a charity that beliefs mixed-race couples are somehow less then white couples?

Let's take this though experiment 1 step farther. Instead The Lifeline Corps. lets call them the Salvation Army and instead of opposing mixed-race couples, how about opposing same sex couples.

Would that be ok for a charity? Would that make the difference, is it ok to deny gay couples, but you can't deny mixed-race couples?

And, in case you were wondering, all of the paragraphs above were taken from the Salvation Army Canadian website, all I changed was the name and changed references from gay marriage to mixed-race marriage

Do you still feel good about the Salvation Army?

My journey into skepticism - the night I saw a shadow person

I'm not sure how many of you what a Shadow Person is. A Shadow Person is believed to be a human-like spirits that take the form of shadows and are often seen only in peripheral vision.

My experience was a bit different. I was asleep[ in my bed when I felt that I woke up, but I could not move. the most I could do was just barely open my eyes so I could see my room.

What I saw was a shadowy figure walk into my room, turn towards me and lean down over me. I could sense this being just centimeters from my nose. I could feel the movement of the bed as they put there hands beside my shoulders as they leaned down towards my face.

It was a scary experience, and after only a moment I sat up in bed and this shadow was gone. If I was at a less skeptical point in my life, I may have called what I saw a ghost of some kind, but I was skeptical at the time, so I didn't jump to any conclusions.

Everything about the experience felt completely real and if I only trusted my senses, I would have no reason to doubt what happened, but something did happen that showed me this was only a dream or other hallucination

While I was paralysed in my bed and saw this figure enter my room, I could see a window on the far wall and in the window I saw the full moon. After the figure vanished and I was able to sit up I looked out the window and saw no moon, just stars.

This episode only lasted a few minutes so the moon would have no time to move in the sky so far, unless more time had passed then I believed, but if I cant trust my perception of time how can I trust any perception I had that night.

I decided that the moon was a giveaway that it was a dream. My brain knows the window was there and it was night, so it invented something to put in the window that would not look out of place. It decided a full moon would do nicely, but it had no way of knowing if the moon was really in my window.

So when I woke up and saw reality, I could see that it did not match watch I saw just a moment ago.

And as a skeptic, objective reality matters.

Atheism+, where the plural of anecdote is data

My understanding of the Atheism+ movement is that it was born out of incidents of sexual harassment at atheist conventions and in online forums.

I have heard about the elevator incident, the atheist girl on reddit getting rape jokes, the muslima, and many other such anecdotes.

And that is what they are, anecdotes.

I have heard time and time again that the plural of anecdote is NOT data, so why are charges of male privilege and rape culture supported by anecdotes?

It appears that even asking for statistics on sexual harassment is tantamount to "blaming the victim"

How can we as a skeptical community accept that?

If someone told me they were raped by a gray space alien, would it be wrong to ask for evidence?

Should we just accept that 100% of rape claims and sexual harassment are 100% true and accurate 100% of the time and not to be questioned?

It may be cold to say "show me the evidence" when we are confronted with a report of sexual harassment, but I didn't become an atheist to make friends.

Atheism is a response to those who deny reality and insist some kind of "God" created everything according to his plan.

I also notice that the request for evidence about "God" is treated like an insult and not something done in "polite" conversation, something very similar to sexual harassment claims

So which is it my fellow atheist and skeptics, do we demand evidence for all claims, or does rape and sexual harassment get a pass with only anecdotes and hurt feelings as the evidence?

It may be cold and indifferent, but objective reality matters whether you want to admit it or not.

Also, on the flip side, actual evidence of rape and sexual harassment cannot be ignored, or we are no better then the creationists that won't accept evidence for evolution.

As a skeptic, you must be prepared that everything you know could be wrong.

That goes for MRAs, feminists, A+ and any other group that hopes to have there "Tenets" based in reality.


- Sent From My Blackberry

Atheism+, revised

I have been looking into Atheism+ for a few weeks now, and I think I found my major stumbling block.

The 'tenets' of Atheism+ go as follows:

Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women's rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism

If I were to remake Atheism+, I would change these 'tenets' into rules and it would go as follows:

1) Use critical thinking and skepticism

2) Support equality of treatment for all human beings, unless this conflicts with rule 1

3) Support freedom of expression for all human beings, unless this conflicts with rule 1

4) Support freedom from religion for all human beings, unless this conflicts with rule 1

5) Don't be a (dick, cunt, asshole, your insult of choice), unless this conflicts with rule 1

I think you might see where I'm going with this.

Atheism+ seems to put critical thinking and skepticism at the bottom of the list. I would put it at the top of all the list and make all other rules or tenets subject to skepticism and critical thinking

Because without critical thinking and skepticism, how can you be sure your beliefs reflect reality?

And if objective reality is unimportant to your beliefs, how much of an atheist are you really?

- Sent From My Blackberry

RationalWiki disappoints me

I was doing some reading on the RationalWiki, when I came across the entry for Free Thought Blogs, and I found something that is not very rational at all.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freethought_blogs

Under the section "Taking a feminist-skeptic stand", they mention the issues that arose with Thunderf00t, but I had to check I wasn't on Conservapedia by accident when I read the quality of the article.

Here is a direct quote:

"The vlogger Thunderf00t briefly joined Freethought Blogs in summer 2012, but was quickly fired after repeatedly and somewhat incoherently blogging that those pushing for protection for women at atheist/skeptic events were wrong, or overreacting, or whatever. As a result, a large sector of the angrier, less self-aware parts of the atheist community have decided that FtB isn't about free thought at all because something-something-something-evo-psych-something girls are stinky."

If this is what passes for "Constructive dialogue" at RationalWiki,
I'm afraid they don't know the meaning of the word Rational very well.

My journey into skepticism - how I almost became a 9/11 truther

11 years ago today, the world felt like a much different place. America was under terrorist attack and even up here in Canada there was chaos.

No one had any answers, we didn't even know if the attacks stopped or was every plane overhead a new attack?

In time, people calmed down, but the search for answers intensified.

The government was under pressure to get answers, and answers take time.

The first real serious movie I saw on about the attacks was Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore

At the time, the movie raised some questions I found compelling.

Why were Saudi nationals flown out of the country on Sept 13th? What was the deal with James Bath? Why did we attack Iraq if the terrorist were mostly Saudi and Bin Laden was in Afghanistan?

The second movie I recall seeing on the subject was Loose Change

That movie presented a vision of events that would lead anyone to question the official story, and perhaps suspect the government itself of causing the attacks.

But my flirting with Trutherism was short lived.

After Loose Change I looked for more documentaries on 9/11 and that was how I found the movie Screw Loose Change.

Never before did I see one movie so thoroughly debunk another movie.

I watched all 4 hours of Screw Loose Change, and by the end I was a changed man.

I saw how easily facts and anomalies can be presented to build a narrative of events, I saw how I fell for the half truths and outright lies.

This was my first official step into skepticism.

It was not long after my viewing of Screw Loose Change when I found James Randi.

And through the videos of James Randi I found skepticism and I decided to call it home.

I never did find out who made the movie Screw Loose Change, but whoever it was did me a great service.

I look back with a slight tinge of embarrassment when I remember the videos I watched over and over, hoping to find a glimpse of the truth.

I watched Alex Jones inside Bohemian Groove, I watched videos on the New World Order by enigmaTV, I even watched videos about the prophecies of Nostradomas and the Mayan 2012 predictions.

I can understand now why those videos left me wanting more, there was no glimpse of truth to find.

I only ever found 1 thing in a conspiracy video that made me pause

At the end of a DVD by enigmaTV video there was a half second image that was shown at the end of the video

I had to pause the video to even see what it was

It was an american flag with the stars replaced with stars of david and a caption that said "Who are you fighting for?"

That shocked me, nothing in the video previously mentions jews or jewish religion, so why the blatant anti-semitism?

That put a sour taste in my mouth and made me step back a little from conspiracy videos at the time

Perhaps I owe that anti-semitism thanks, it helped keep me from sinking too deep in the culture, which allowed Screw Loose Change to open my eyes and helped to make me the man I am today.


- Sent From My Blackberry

My journey into skepticism, The radio in my nose

When I was about 5 or 6, I can remember lying in bed at night and just listening to the sounds of the house.

Like you would hear creaks and bumps and other such sounds, and that was all very normal.

But some nights, I heard something different.

Sometimes while breathing through my nose, I would hear what to me sounded like faint whispers.

No words could be understood, but in my child mind, I had this image of a female news reporter and the idea came to me that I was hearing a radio.

The catch was that the sound was coming from my nose.

One night while this happened, I went downstairs to see my dad and I asked him if he could check my nose and see if he saw a radio.

Like a good father, he checked and he did not make me feel dumb or stupid for asking. He looked up my nose and told me that he didn't see anything and that satisfied me and I went back to bed.

In time I stopped hearing this "Radio" and I have not thought it for years.

In this, I can see a blue print for my life as an adult.

I experienced something strange, I did some investigating to find the cause, and when I find evidence that indicates its just my imagination, I accept that and move on.

If only we were all so lucky.



- Sent From My Blackberry

My Journey Into Skepticism - The Night I Saw A UFO

It was a warm August night. I was about 9 or 10 at the time, and I was sitting at a camp fire with my dad and my dad's friend Michelle.

It must have been past 10 at night, the sky was quite dark and it was a clear night.

Michelle looks to her left and she mentions that she sees 2 lights that are very close to the horizon. Much closer then any of us had seen before.

My memory gets a little fuzzy at the point, but we somehow convinced ourselves that it was not a star, or a planet, or a plane, or anything else. By definition, the lights were UFOs, and we were afraid.

I remember that my other aunts, uncles, cousins and neighbours or were around were all called over and had a look at these lights.

I myself remember looking at the lights for many hours. I remember how after looking at the lights for a while, I would notice them flicker red and white.

At first I thought it indicated that these were spacecraft and not stars, because stars don't flicker red and white.

However, I looked at the stars in the big dipper, and I started to notice that same red and white flicker

I started to look at every bright star and they all did the red and white flicker.

I then realized that the flicker must be just my imagination causing my eyes to see something that was not there.

At some point during the night, the excitement died down and everyone went to bed.

The next night, I looked for the lights we saw the night before, and they did return.

The lights were still in the eastern sky, but this time they were not so close to the horizon. They were higher up in the sky, but the relative distance between the lights never changed. It was as if the entire night sky was slightly shifted.

That was when I realized that the lights we saw were not UFOs. They had not moved relative to each other, they had only moved higher in the night sky.

It could not be a planet, as it would have moved. It could not have been a ship, unless it was a ship that never moved in 24 hours expect slightly higher in the sky.

So I decided that it was a star and not much was ever said about it again by my family.

But I can still remember back to that first night, and the feeling of my legs shaking in fear of these lights. I could feel the fear in everyone that night, and this fear was caused by nothing more then 2 stars a little low on the horizon.

My Journey Into Skepticism - The Easter Bunny

Back in 1987, I was in the first grade. I remember one morning my father had driven me to school.

We were sitting in the car before the morning bell rung and, I’m not sure how the conversation started, but we talked about the Easter Bunny. I can’t remember now if this was near Easter or not, but the timing doesn’t matter so much now.  (I was wearing a coat, so the weather fits as being close to Easter.)

That morning before school, I was talking to my dad about doubts I had about the Easter Bunny. He explained to me that the Easter Bunny was more of the spirit of Easter and not a real person.

So I asked about the candy that was left out during the night, and my dad explained how it was him and mom who put the candy out, but the spirit of the Easter Bunny helped.

In my mind I had this image of my parents putting eggs on the couch and then some candy would magically float and be put in places. This was my idea of how the spirit of the Easter bunny worked.

In one 10 minute conversation, my idea of a magic bunny hiding candy in my house was replaced with the idea that my parents hid the candy, but an invisible spirit helped them in some way.

Eventually the bell rang and I ran off to school. I remember my father warning me not to tell the other kids what I had learned and spoil Easter for them, but I was a 6 year old, so of course I told my friends.

I remember the first person I told. His name was James and we were hanging up our coats in the coat room and I asked him “Did you hear that the Easter Bunny isn’t real?” and he replied “Yeah I know and the Tooth Fairy is fake too.”

I believe this was the moment I started my path towards skepticism.

Even though I did tell some of my friends, my father’s warning about not spoiling Easter stuck with me too.

It made me think I had some secret knowledge and that not everyone was able to handle this knowledge.  I was somehow smart enough to know this, while many of my friends where in the dark and kept believing in something I knew was fake.

I don’t think my father ever thought this at the time, but it was this reasoning that lead me to question God and the Bible many years later.

The War On Crying

My son has been putting up a bit of a fuss at bedtime. He likes to cry and whine when put to bed, because he would rather stay up and play.

I decided my approach to his bedtime was not working, so I turned to the government as a model.

I want to control crying in my child the same way the government wants to control a person's use of drugs, so I started "The War On Crying"

I passed a law in my house that crying is prohibited between then hours of 7 pm and 6 am. I told this to my son, but he still cried at his bedtime (which is 7 pm). I explained to him that the punishment for breaking the law is that he won't get dessert tomorrow after dinner.

He stilled cried, but the War On Crying is working, I just need to try harder.

So I pass a law banning crying between 6 pm and 7 am, and I also make it illegal to cry at anytime above 80 decibels. I also increase the penalty so instead of just losing dessert, I take away his bedtime toy.

He still cried, so I took his toy away and he cried even harder. The War On Crying must be working, I just need to try harder.

I decided that even letting him cry during the day was setting a bad example, so I passed a law banning all crying. Yes this will definitely work, my son will get the message now, and if he doesn't I just take away more toys and privileges.

To my amazement, he still cried. So I had no choice but to take away toy after toy and stop letting him have any treats or desserts. I don't understand this, but this just made him cry more and more.

Where did I go wrong? I made the laws harsher, I made the punishment worse, but my son still cried.

It's almost as if you can't change someone's behavior by passing laws, but that can't be true.

Why would we waste our time with a War On Drugs if  it didn't work?

Bloomberg's Utopia

I was watching the 1993 movie "Demolition Man" the other day and I found an intereesting scene in the movie

John Spartan was just released from prison and his first request is for a cigerette.

He was then told that "Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal."

They then go on the list everything that is illegal:

"Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat, bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence. "

Then it hit me.

This is New York Major Michael Bloomberg's utopia

Lets just look at a list of Ban's Bloomberg supports

• 32oz drinks - anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal.
• Trans fats - anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal.
• Second hand smoke - anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal.
• Alcohol - anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal.
• Salt - anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal.

Maybe the Edgar Friendly character said it best

"I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". "

Is that the future you want to live in? The future we want our kids to live in?

Some people say I'm not as funny as I think I am

But I'm skeptical ;)
- Sent From My Blackberry

What is best for me?

It seems like a lot of people in this world are looking out for my best interests, whether I want them to or not.

If I smoke cannabis, the government is nice enough to take away my freedoms, take away my property and give me a criminal record for life. Isn't that nice of them?

If I give my son cookies in his lunch for school, the school is nice enough to send the cookies back uneaten with a nice letter explaining what are good snacks and bad snacks and how I'm a bad parent for giving my child cookies. In the future they may even be nice enough to call children's aid to report my "indiscretion"

If I allow customers to smoke cigarettes in my store, the government is nice enough to give me a $5,000 fine. It doesn't matter what type of ventilation system I use. Clearly the science on ventilation is not yet clear or why else would they deny me the ability to smoke in a ventilated work place, for my own good.

It seems that the last person who knows what's best for you, is you.

Who knows what's best for you?

When someone gets a ticket for failure to wear a seat belt, do you think " serves them right, the law is only there to protect you. The law knows what's best."

Of course its best for someone to wear a seat belt. Only someone who rejects logic and reason would not want to wear a seat belt, and people who reject logic and reason need to be protected from themselves.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

Of course everyone should get vaccinated. Only brainwashed people would deny vaccines and we can't let brainwashed people hurt themselves or others. There ought to be a law saying everyone should get vaccinated.

Would you agree with this statement?

If you agree with both statements above, then you know what is best for people.

I don't feel that way

If someone refuses to wear a seat belt, they should not get a ticket. If they die its there life to lose.

If someone wants to run a business that allows smoking, I don't see why I should stop them. I don't agree with them so I won't shop in that store and they can go bankrupt

I know the classic argument against this is "The Cost To Society" and its a scary argument when you look at it.

What is society? How do we define harm or cost to society?

Is my suicide a harm to society due to lost productivity and last tax revenue?

Is my alcoholism a cost to society due to absenteeism at work and a lost of productivity for the company?

How far down does this rabbit hole go?

I think the best advice I could give is:

No one knows what's best for you, and you don't know what's best for anyone else.

It might be a strange world at first, but it might be worth a try.
- Sent From My Blackberry

The science on car brakes isn't in yet

After hearing some anti-vaxxers on my local radio call-in program, it got me thinking about an interesting parallel scenario.

The topic of the call-in show in question was about doctors firing patients for not getting themselves or there kids vaccinated. The topic was framed very much as a freedom of choice and the rights of the patient and it got me wondering.

Could I take my car to my mechanic, and when he tells me I need new brakes, can I say "I don't believe the science on brakes is in yet. You can fix my window wipers and lights, but don't touch the brakes."

The mechanic could protest "But without brakes your car won't stop. You will be a danger to everyone else on the road."

I could reply "You are just part of the automotive industrial complex and you are paid off my Big Auto to push the idea of brakes."

The mechanic could tell me about the many times he has seen brakes save lives and how he would never personally drive a car without brakes.

I could then tell him I found a website called "Brakes-R-Bad" and how brakes cause bad fuel mileage and increase green house gas emissions and no thinking person could ever approve of the use of brakes.

I will even tell him about how I saw Jim Carrey on The Tonight Show speaking to how brakes destroyed his dad's car and gave his son asthma from all the dust particles brakes cause.

After hearing all this, the mechanic tells me he can't fix my car and he can't have me as a customer any longer. He can't in good conscience allow me to drive away in a car with no brakes.

This would offend me, he is violating my rights as a consumer to not use brakes. What gives him the right to tell me what should go on my car? Just because some fancy experts show me graphs on stopping distance and statistics on deaths caused by no brakes. What do these experts know anyway? Didn't they ever him Jim Carrey talk about the evils of brakes? These experts must be in on the conspiracy.

The mechanic then tells me its against the law to drive on public roads with a car that doesn't have working brakes.

Well that just gets my blood boiling, the nanny state is just trying to control me and force me to believe in these so called brakes.

What gives the government the right to force my to use brakes on my car? Just because they claim I'm endangering the public they believe that gives them the right to tell me how to use my car?

Its my car, its my choice!

I hope everyone reading this can see the parallel's between this anti-braker and the common arguments anti-vaxxers employ.

So let me ask you these 2 questions:

Do I have the right to refuse vaccines and endanger everyone in the doctors waiting room?

Do I have the right to refuse brakes on my car and endanger everyone I drive with on the public roads?

Omar Khadr's fate

I don't understand the double standard when it comes to Omar Khadr.

These facts appear to be undisputed:

1) He killed an american soldier during combat

2) He was 15 years old at the time

3) He was sentenced to 8 years at gitmo, for which 7 has been served

4) The USA wants him sent back to Canada to finish his sentence.

What I don't understand is the insane fear people have in his return to Canada

I can understand not liking an enemy soldier, but he is still a Canadian and if we just ignore his rights because he committed a crime, then what rights and freedoms are we fighting to protect?

What he did during his time at war may be horrible, and he paid for his crime with 8 years of his life.

Do we now throw out everything it means to be Canadian just so we can get revenge on a 15 year old soldier?

This may be cliche, but if Omar Khadr is denied his rights as a Canadian, then the terrorists win.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry

"Atheism Is a Religion" or "See, you are no better then me!"

Over at Reason Magazine, I came across this article "Atheism Is A Religion" and I wanted to make a comment about it.

Here is the final paragraph of the article:

Atheists should embrace their religiosity, recognize the biological component that drives them to make sense of the world like the rest of us, and church it up. As the Man from Galilee once put it, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. If you don’t believe in God, then you don’t owe him anything. And if my Facebook friends are any indication, you lost your sense of humor ages ago. Which means you atheists may have nothing left to lose but your taxable status.

 This paragraph betrays a way of thinking a lot of religious people share. She wants to believe that Atheism is just like Christianity or Islam. She needs to believe that Atheism is no better or worse then the religion she picked. It's like a thief believing that everyone else steals something so his crimes are no worse then anyone else.

The religions need to feel the same way about atheism. Atheism isn't a rejection of everything you hold deer by a reasoned argument, no, its's just a different belief system which is morally equivalent to any other religion.

Once a religious person realizes that an atheist is not a believer like you, it can be hard to get over the cognitive dissonance of the situation.

When a Christian is confronted by a Muslim, but can discount the other's arguments because both arguments are based on blind faith and with nothing tying the belief to reality, neither belief can be said to be better or worse then the other

But with atheism, things get tricky. Atheism is tied to reality, Atheism can be dis-proven, Atheism is not equal to other beliefs, atheism is the rejection of all other beliefs because they are simply not good enough. 

It's much easier to believe someone's beliefs are no better then yours then to know that everything you hold as Truth can be rejected so easily and you have no argument with which to fight that rejection. 

Is anti-WIFI the new anti-vax?

It appears that in my neck of the woods, a new kind of woo is rearing it's ugly head, and this new woo is Anti-WIFI

Anyone familiar with anti-vaxers will recolonize all the same signs in the anti-WIFIers

This anti-WIFI group goes by the same of "Safe School Committee" (nice Orwellian name) and you can find there website at http://www.safeschool.ca It's good for a laugh when you can stop from crying.

The "Safe School Committee" compiled a list of "symptoms" related to WIFI exposer

Let's have a look at some of these symptoms

* Headaches
* Dizziness - Nausea - Vertigo (subsides when student leaves the school)
* Visual and Auditory Distortion (unsure of where they are, voices change volume)
* Racing Heart Rate (Tachycardia)
* Memory Loss (trouble remembering school material)* Attention Deficit (trouble concentrating while in class)
* Skin Rash (goes away on school breaks)
* Hyperactivity/Anxiety (behaviour not previously seen in the child)
* Night Sweats (unexplainable, unrelated to fever)
* Insomnia (microwaves affect melatonin levels)

 

 Wow, pretty scary list eh? I'm surprised they did add Cancer or Autism to this list

Starting to see the pattern with anti-WIFIers and anti-vaxers now?

It gets worse...

  

Some parents note that in the past year their kids "aren't quite the same". Their children have dropped a grade, are despondent or "out of sorts." In some cases teachers are noting these changes in the student.

Wow, really? a child's attitude and school marks have changed, it can't be bullying, it can't be issues at home, it can't be that he needs glasses, it can't be that he is bored.. oh no, its WIFI or nothing for these people.

Symptoms of Microwave exposure can vary from child to child. All of these symptoms have been reported by parents of children attending schools in Simcoe County. The symptoms tend to subside when the children come home, or on weekends and holidays.

I must take it that NONE of the parents must have WIFI at home, and at the same time they must never use bluetooth or use cordless phones at home either (They use the same frequencies)

and, after all, we all know how reliable self reporting is in the medical community

here is one last tidbit that caught my eye as well

 The Microwave intensity inside one Simcoe kindergarten classroom was measured at 4X Stronger than when standing near a cell phone tower, although there were no computers in that classroom. The WiFi could be turned off without impact.

I take it these people have never heard of the inverse square law. How NEAR to a cell phone tower are they measuring?  Where in the classroom did they measure a signal 4X stronger? Was it right next to the router or the other side of the classroom? These are huge holes anyone familiar with science would ask about.

And telling me the signal is 4X stronger doesn't tell me if its good or bad. Sunlight is 4X stronger during the day then at night, should we all fear sunlight?

I feel so embarrassed that my fellow Canadians can be the birth place of yet another anti-science woo crusade

and, of course, IT'S ALL FOR THE KIDS.....

Feminism and Women and Children First

With the recent cruise ship incident in Italy, I have heard many people talk about the navel tradition of women and children first in life boats.

I'm not sure how much this tradition was followed back in the day, it might be more of a nostalgic belief in the good old days then actual fact.

However, what we do know is that when the cruise ship started to sink, women and children were not first on the life boats, it was more of a first come, first serve basis.

Leaving aside the issue of children, is a woman's life more valuable then a man's?

The very idea of women and children first illustrates that a woman's life and a man's life are seen as having different value.

Either its a case of believing that women are precious and must be saved as all cost, or believing that a disaster is no place for a woman and better to get the women to safety so that the men can get to work saving the day.

It is probably a mixture of believing that women are the weaker sex and must be saved combined with a gentlemen's honour to never allow a woman to come to harm.

Either way, it is a bit condescending to the women involved.

Are women so helpless that they need special treatment during times of crisis?

From what I understand about feminism, its that men and women should be treated equally at all times and in all occasions.

That would also include being treated equally during a time of crisis.

So my final thought is, is the policy of women and children first a sexist policy that all people should oppose in the name of equality, or is the life of a woman more valuable then a mans?


Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry