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

Of Charles McVety and Homosexuals

I just heard Charles McVety on the Oakley show this morning talking about the teaching of gay issues to school children.

He had lots of fancy talking points about how this will corrupt the children and cause confusion.

But that is just smoke and mirrors, the real issue McVety has is that he doesn't want to normalize homosexuals.

Sure he wants them to be loved and respected, but he never wants them to be seen as normal.
Its the very fact that children will be taught that being gay is ok that McVety has the issue with. He wants gays to feel remorse and want to change their ways, and that won't happen if they don't know they should be ashamed.

The part that drives me nuts is that we won't admit this. He cloaks himself in parental rights, but that is easily seen as smoke and mirrors

He has no issue with schools teaching religious values to kids, no issues of parental rights there.

He has no issue with kids being taught that being black is normal and being disabled is normal, but he can't stand the fact kids will be taught being gay is normal.

I have no respect for McVety or his cause, but what saddens me the most were the callers I heard on the air.

"My friend in school was a tomboy and if she was taught being gay was ok, then she would be in therapy forever"

Arg.... The ignorance is scary in this world some days.

- Sent From My Blackberry