I'll come out of the blue right now: I absolutely do not care for religion. I think it is a waste of time. As I've said countless times, it is pointless at its best and dangerous at its worst. Why anyone accepts such nonsense as a "God" or "Jesus" without any verifiable evidence is beyond me. Of course, I am no atheist; I am an agnostic who knows it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. I believe this is the best "religious" position to take. After all, there are thousands of religions around the world. Why chance it with low odds like that? Why not just repudiate all of them instead of assuming one is more accurate than the other?
Having said that, I have no problem with religious people, just so long as they respect boundaries and don't try to cram their beliefs down my throat, especially if those beliefs are authoritarian. This is why I do not understand the New Atheist movement. Yes, I'm glad that the over 30 million atheists and agnostics in this country are finally standing up for themselves against prejudice from a largely Christian America; however, I just don't see the point in rebuking all religious people or having pointless debates about whether or not God exists. Why do we need to proselytize?? When we do stuff like that, we're no better than the religious loons we decry.
The fact of the matter is that most atheists today don't actually hate religious people; they hate fanatical religious people. But, strangely, too many of them assume that all religious folks are equal to the fanatics simply by virtue of having a similar belief system. But isn't that bigotry? Isn't that prejudice? If we are trying to be above the lunatics, why do we stoop to their level? I just don't understand this mentality at all. And I think what's blinding most atheists who do act like assholes is the idea that just because they're not religious they can't possibly be assholes when trying to persuade. They're just "trying to promote reason."
But that's just it! You're not! You're promoting intolerance and hate. What's wrong with someone who happens to be religious but minds his own business? I don't see what the big deal is. We have let our hatred of religious extremism go too far. This nonsense has got to stop. If someone wants to know why we're atheists, fine. Tell them. But don't proselytize and try to convert people just because you think you're somehow more moral or freethinking than they are. After all, religious people aren't always idiots. And I've met or seen plenty of idiotic atheists as well.
Let's just cool it, atheists. Relax. Moderation is key, and abstinence is not necessarily required. I would think we know this by now, having opposed abstinence or abstinence-only teaching from the archconservative crowd in all sorts of matters. Besides, do atheists honestly believe there aren't fanatics and dangerous people in their own crowd?
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Statutory Rape Laws Make No Sense
I recently watched an episode of the critically-acclaimed libertarian Fox Business Show "Stossel", and this time he was talking about the "rules" of sex (a.k.a. legal restrictions surrounding sexuality or the depictions thereof). About halfway through the episode, John Stossel went over the story of Ricky and Mary. I don't remember exactly, but I think Ricky was 17 or 18, and Mary was 15. They began dating during high school, and they had sex many times. The girl's mother was quite alright with it, and no one was harmed.
However, when authorities found this out (however that happened), they immediately prosecuted Ricky! And for what? "Raping" a minor who's only a few years younger than him? It's insane! I'm so tired of this nonsense. Statutory rape is a victimless crime! We already have laws to protect children from sexual predators, women from adult rapists, and so many other bans on violent crime. Who the hell came up with the concept of "statutory rape"?
I'll tell you who: ultraconservative prudish legislators whose minds are still in the 18th Century when it comes to sex. They cannot fathom that times have changed, and we know so much more now than we knew back then. For example, it is true, to a fault, that teenagers can consent to sexual intercourse. I mean, when I was a teenager, I was pretty damn mature. I would say I was intelligent, and I could easily make an informed, thoughtful decision about sex. Now, I'm not encouraging older men to prey on teens, but come on. Even if that happens, I'm sure some cop nearby will likely hear about it sooner or later. I refuse to believe that every single or the majority of teenage rape cases by adults are covered up and never go to court. That's just mad! Just try and prove me wrong, right-wingers and prudes.
And this just takes us back to the age-old question of, "What is the appropriate age?" Sure, when it comes to things like smoking and drinking, we are sure we know the appropriate age. Most people would say 18 and 21 are reasonable ages to start such activities. However, sex is much different. It's your body that we're talking about. I think each statutory "rape" case needs to be judged on its own merits, not lumped in with all the other rape cases. It's that kind of nonsensical, lying mentality that leads conservative groups to make bullshit sting videos "exposing" Planned Parenthood for supposedly "covering up" rape by older men when they have zero proof the pregnant girls were even raped!
And then there's the whole issue of people's (usually men) lives being ruined because, thanks to these bogus cases, they have to register as sex offenders! These people are branded for life as criminals and bad people simply because overzealous cops and politicians just don't get it! They won't grow up and stop living in the 1800s. For example, when Ricky turns 50 or 60, and someone looks his name up on the registry, they will see that it says that he had sex with a 15-year-old. Or, better yet, as the registry puts it, he "sexually assaulted" her. Then some angry vigilante out there might just put a gun to his head or aim a shotgun at him, mistakenly thinking that he, as an old man, was so perverted that he raped a young girl. How can we allow such ridiculous laws to go unquestioned??
It's not about age; it's about consent and maturity. People need to realize that instead of lumping all young people and teenagers in the same category. I'm not saying we should condone pedophilia. Far from it, I am saying that capable teenagers, especially older ones (15-17), should be allowed at least a bit more sexual freedom, at least under the law, than we give them! If they have sex, their parents should deal with it, not the state. The state getting involved just tends to make things worse here. It's not necessary.
Show me actual, verifiable proof that statutory rape laws prevent rapists from preying on young girls. Where does it work, if anywhere?? Statutory rape laws can't possibly work. A rapist doesn't give a damn if it's illegal, and some guy in his 20s or 30s who wants to screw a hot 17- or 16-year-old should not be jailed for it. As long as it's consensual, where is the harm? Sure, statutory rape laws may prevent a few rapists here and there from preying on "jailbait", but I think most people it prevents from having sex with them are men who would not rape in the first place!
Simply put, statutory rape laws have got to go. They are nothing but a relic of a misinformed and backwards era.
However, when authorities found this out (however that happened), they immediately prosecuted Ricky! And for what? "Raping" a minor who's only a few years younger than him? It's insane! I'm so tired of this nonsense. Statutory rape is a victimless crime! We already have laws to protect children from sexual predators, women from adult rapists, and so many other bans on violent crime. Who the hell came up with the concept of "statutory rape"?
I'll tell you who: ultraconservative prudish legislators whose minds are still in the 18th Century when it comes to sex. They cannot fathom that times have changed, and we know so much more now than we knew back then. For example, it is true, to a fault, that teenagers can consent to sexual intercourse. I mean, when I was a teenager, I was pretty damn mature. I would say I was intelligent, and I could easily make an informed, thoughtful decision about sex. Now, I'm not encouraging older men to prey on teens, but come on. Even if that happens, I'm sure some cop nearby will likely hear about it sooner or later. I refuse to believe that every single or the majority of teenage rape cases by adults are covered up and never go to court. That's just mad! Just try and prove me wrong, right-wingers and prudes.
And this just takes us back to the age-old question of, "What is the appropriate age?" Sure, when it comes to things like smoking and drinking, we are sure we know the appropriate age. Most people would say 18 and 21 are reasonable ages to start such activities. However, sex is much different. It's your body that we're talking about. I think each statutory "rape" case needs to be judged on its own merits, not lumped in with all the other rape cases. It's that kind of nonsensical, lying mentality that leads conservative groups to make bullshit sting videos "exposing" Planned Parenthood for supposedly "covering up" rape by older men when they have zero proof the pregnant girls were even raped!
And then there's the whole issue of people's (usually men) lives being ruined because, thanks to these bogus cases, they have to register as sex offenders! These people are branded for life as criminals and bad people simply because overzealous cops and politicians just don't get it! They won't grow up and stop living in the 1800s. For example, when Ricky turns 50 or 60, and someone looks his name up on the registry, they will see that it says that he had sex with a 15-year-old. Or, better yet, as the registry puts it, he "sexually assaulted" her. Then some angry vigilante out there might just put a gun to his head or aim a shotgun at him, mistakenly thinking that he, as an old man, was so perverted that he raped a young girl. How can we allow such ridiculous laws to go unquestioned??
It's not about age; it's about consent and maturity. People need to realize that instead of lumping all young people and teenagers in the same category. I'm not saying we should condone pedophilia. Far from it, I am saying that capable teenagers, especially older ones (15-17), should be allowed at least a bit more sexual freedom, at least under the law, than we give them! If they have sex, their parents should deal with it, not the state. The state getting involved just tends to make things worse here. It's not necessary.
Show me actual, verifiable proof that statutory rape laws prevent rapists from preying on young girls. Where does it work, if anywhere?? Statutory rape laws can't possibly work. A rapist doesn't give a damn if it's illegal, and some guy in his 20s or 30s who wants to screw a hot 17- or 16-year-old should not be jailed for it. As long as it's consensual, where is the harm? Sure, statutory rape laws may prevent a few rapists here and there from preying on "jailbait", but I think most people it prevents from having sex with them are men who would not rape in the first place!
Simply put, statutory rape laws have got to go. They are nothing but a relic of a misinformed and backwards era.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Myths of Income
It's often said by liberals, "progressives", and Democrats that "the middle class is shrinking." Of course, that's not true, but it makes for exciting news, doesn't it? If a journalist can "sniff out the truth" about declining wages, he's onto something, esp. a promotion. But today's media and DNC rarely get economics right, which most certainly includes the income equality myth.
Income inequality is a fallacy primarily because it says that just because the guys at the top have so much more money than you somehow that means you're making less. Well, I hate to say it, but that's a load of crap. For example, if you are in a business contest with all the other students in your class, and they do better than you, does that mean you have less money? No, of course not! You still got the money you made, and they made the money they made. It just means they made more!
You have to put things like this in perspective, or else you're gonna wind up looking like an idiot who doesn't think things through. In fact, contrary to popular belief, incomes for the lower and middle classes have risen sharply, even over just the past half century- the post-war economic boom! Don't believe me? Look it up. As the rich have gotten richer, so have the the other classes!! Sure, the rise for other classes wasn't as sharp as the rich's, but who cares?? You're richer. The per capita GDP (or the average individual income, in a sense) is $47,000! That's a lot of money. Yes, household income hasn't risen nearly as fast as individual, but why would it? Households usually have at least 2 people. It's pretty costly to take care of many people if you're the only breadwinner.
Besides, why the hell would big business purposely lower wages for everyone so much, or lay off so many people, that we become a 3rd-World country? Do you honestly think that's a good strategy? Hell no! Big businesses would lose an enormous amount revenue, and they would go out of business because we would be able to afford their products much less. Big businesses may be cunning, "evil" (as some liberals claim), and greedy, but they're not stupid. A free enterprise system has lifted far more people out of poverty than all the socialist and Communist countries combined! Why don't liberals ever see this? They always focus on the bad things in economics: "We're becoming a 3rd-World nation" "The rich are making more than ever" "Wages have stagnated since the 1970s." None of these claims are true, but it sure makes for good campaign rhetoric, doesn't it? If you can convince the masses you're telling the truth, that's all that matters in politics anymore, right?
Wages have hardly stagnated, except maybe for some lower-skilled jobs. But that's to be expected. I mean, how much more can you possibly make in a sector which has essentially "maxed out" and is becoming less and less important to overall growth as time goes by, such as manufacturing? I'm happy for postindustrialization. It means overall growth and productivity is higher! It means that, eventually, lower-skilled folks will have to graduate high school and go to college, at least for a few years, to get the skills needed for real jobs that require intelligence, not just learning how to operate a machine or put something together. Anyone with a little strength, good eyesight, fair listening skills and manual dexterity can do that!
Besides, what's so bad about income inequality? I'm glad there are rich people at the top to keep the economy going, and I'm even gladder that there are wealthy companies that hire lots of people and make their lives better through high wages. It's often been said that the best cure for poverty is not welfare, food stamps, AFDC, WIC, Medicaid, or any of those entitlements, but a job, preferably a high-paying one. I couldn't agree more.
Income inequality is a fallacy primarily because it says that just because the guys at the top have so much more money than you somehow that means you're making less. Well, I hate to say it, but that's a load of crap. For example, if you are in a business contest with all the other students in your class, and they do better than you, does that mean you have less money? No, of course not! You still got the money you made, and they made the money they made. It just means they made more!
You have to put things like this in perspective, or else you're gonna wind up looking like an idiot who doesn't think things through. In fact, contrary to popular belief, incomes for the lower and middle classes have risen sharply, even over just the past half century- the post-war economic boom! Don't believe me? Look it up. As the rich have gotten richer, so have the the other classes!! Sure, the rise for other classes wasn't as sharp as the rich's, but who cares?? You're richer. The per capita GDP (or the average individual income, in a sense) is $47,000! That's a lot of money. Yes, household income hasn't risen nearly as fast as individual, but why would it? Households usually have at least 2 people. It's pretty costly to take care of many people if you're the only breadwinner.
Besides, why the hell would big business purposely lower wages for everyone so much, or lay off so many people, that we become a 3rd-World country? Do you honestly think that's a good strategy? Hell no! Big businesses would lose an enormous amount revenue, and they would go out of business because we would be able to afford their products much less. Big businesses may be cunning, "evil" (as some liberals claim), and greedy, but they're not stupid. A free enterprise system has lifted far more people out of poverty than all the socialist and Communist countries combined! Why don't liberals ever see this? They always focus on the bad things in economics: "We're becoming a 3rd-World nation" "The rich are making more than ever" "Wages have stagnated since the 1970s." None of these claims are true, but it sure makes for good campaign rhetoric, doesn't it? If you can convince the masses you're telling the truth, that's all that matters in politics anymore, right?
Wages have hardly stagnated, except maybe for some lower-skilled jobs. But that's to be expected. I mean, how much more can you possibly make in a sector which has essentially "maxed out" and is becoming less and less important to overall growth as time goes by, such as manufacturing? I'm happy for postindustrialization. It means overall growth and productivity is higher! It means that, eventually, lower-skilled folks will have to graduate high school and go to college, at least for a few years, to get the skills needed for real jobs that require intelligence, not just learning how to operate a machine or put something together. Anyone with a little strength, good eyesight, fair listening skills and manual dexterity can do that!
Besides, what's so bad about income inequality? I'm glad there are rich people at the top to keep the economy going, and I'm even gladder that there are wealthy companies that hire lots of people and make their lives better through high wages. It's often been said that the best cure for poverty is not welfare, food stamps, AFDC, WIC, Medicaid, or any of those entitlements, but a job, preferably a high-paying one. I couldn't agree more.
Idiot liberals like to talk about how the Gini coefficient is lower in many European nations with larger welfare states. What they don't tell you is that these nations also have much more burdensome business regulations, higher taxes, and high unemployment. Unemployment in Western Europe was similar to the U.S.'s in the 1960s, but then it stagnated with the introduction of huge government.
Simply put, it's hard as hell to get the kind of economic growth over there that America has, and it's even harder to become a billionaire or even a millionaire. America has at least a few million millionaires. Few European countries come close, I would imagine. In poll after poll, Americans are consistently ranked highest when it comes to who thinks they have the greatest social mobility. That has to mean something.
When are liberals gonna learn?
When are liberals gonna learn?
Homosexuality Is Historical
You ever hear an anti-gay activist say something along the lines of, "The first recorded case of homosexuality was 1869 with Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs"? Well, don't believe it for a second. Yes, it is true that he was gay, and he was "molested" (although he probably just had a thing for) his equestrian trainer when he was 14 (the other guy was in his 30s), but that is hardly a reason for making him gay. Why do conservatives always assume if some younger guy/gal has sex with an older man/woman that it's automatically "rape"? It's such nonsense. What, it's not possible for consent to happen between these 2? Is age really such a big deal?
Anyway, as I was saying, homosexuality has been prevalent throughout much of history. Just about every culture has had it. It's very rare that you see a culture without at least one gay. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can deny that gays are in Iran all he wants, but he's fooling no one.
Here's just one timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history
As you can see, Egypt had the first recorded gay couple thousands of years ago, believe it or not (Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum). In fact, if you go even further back to 12,000 BC (14,000 years ago), you'll find plenty of gay cave paintings and sculptures emphasizing homoeroticism. Sappho of Lesbos may is rumored to have been a lesbian. As perhaps was Plato (or was it Socrates?), Alexander the Great (or bisexual), Marquis de Sade (who probably was bi), and plenty of other historical figures! Hell, even Julius Caesar allegedly had a gay experience. And plenty of Roman emperors in the latter centuries of Rome's existence, including Hadrian and Trajan, were openly gay or were in gay relationships.
Why archconservatives continue to act like "gay" is something new is beyond me. Why can't they just accept it and move on? I swear, modern-day cultures and civilizations are so sexually repressed. We give up tolerance for things such as pedophilia and female genital mutilation, but we exchange it with becoming prudish assholes on sexual practices we do legally allow.
Homosexuality has never been the sole demise of any culture, and I have yet to see any evidence that being gay was even one of the main factors at all! There are plenty of reasons why Greece, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and several other world powers fell. To think that "promotion of homosexuality" is somehow a reason is just ludicrous. Is homosexuality supposed to be some kind of virus that spreads like an epidemic and infects all facets of society?
Anyway, as I was saying, homosexuality has been prevalent throughout much of history. Just about every culture has had it. It's very rare that you see a culture without at least one gay. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can deny that gays are in Iran all he wants, but he's fooling no one.
Here's just one timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history
As you can see, Egypt had the first recorded gay couple thousands of years ago, believe it or not (Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum). In fact, if you go even further back to 12,000 BC (14,000 years ago), you'll find plenty of gay cave paintings and sculptures emphasizing homoeroticism. Sappho of Lesbos may is rumored to have been a lesbian. As perhaps was Plato (or was it Socrates?), Alexander the Great (or bisexual), Marquis de Sade (who probably was bi), and plenty of other historical figures! Hell, even Julius Caesar allegedly had a gay experience. And plenty of Roman emperors in the latter centuries of Rome's existence, including Hadrian and Trajan, were openly gay or were in gay relationships.
Why archconservatives continue to act like "gay" is something new is beyond me. Why can't they just accept it and move on? I swear, modern-day cultures and civilizations are so sexually repressed. We give up tolerance for things such as pedophilia and female genital mutilation, but we exchange it with becoming prudish assholes on sexual practices we do legally allow.
Homosexuality has never been the sole demise of any culture, and I have yet to see any evidence that being gay was even one of the main factors at all! There are plenty of reasons why Greece, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and several other world powers fell. To think that "promotion of homosexuality" is somehow a reason is just ludicrous. Is homosexuality supposed to be some kind of virus that spreads like an epidemic and infects all facets of society?
Redefining Marriage (History)
I always get a good rise whenever I hear some archconservative say that gay marriage "redefines" marriage. Oh, really? Well, what exactly is marriage? Just one man and one woman who love each other? Because that is not the way it has happened throughout history. In fact, marriage, for most cultures outside of the West, is not simply a contract between 2 heterosexuals in love.
In Kenya, for instance, there actually is a form of gay marriage (although it's not purely gay). In this ceremony, an infertile woman from the Nandi tribe can "marry" a younger, more fertile woman, and that younger woman will have sex with the man to have children (or produce boys, if I remember correctly). However, the 2 women who "marry" aren't actually in love, and it's more of a contractual arrangement for convenience. The younger woman, after she gives birth to at least one boy, is allowed to have sex with the man, and the older woman can no longer. She's more like a servant or caretaker now.
In many different cultures, like the Imbonggu in New Guinea, marriage is hardly for love. When children reach the ages of 7-10, they are initiated by the elders and trained to be warriors. At the end, they are selected wives. These wives, as all women, are considered inferior to the man in Imbonggu culture, and thus, she is limited in the marriage. The main purpose for the man is to have sex and have kids, as well as the woman serving as partially his "servant." There's not a lot of affection shown between the 2 spouses. And Imbonggu is one of many polygamous cultures, as men are allowed and even encouraged to have more than one wife.
Polygamy is still widely practiced in the developing and underdeveloped world. Men can have as many wives as possible, or they can have multiple, but there's a limit (such as Arab states that allow up to 4). Western romance and marriage rituals are not the norm worldwide. They are relatively new throughout human history.
In many cultures, marriage is more of an arrangement to unify and align different tribes. A member of one tribe marries another, and they form a bond of protection and kinship. They are allies.
In places like India, marriages are arranged, not necessarily for alliances, though. Many husbands and wives do learn to love each other later on, but oftentimes they do not at the beginning.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Western marriage rituals and traditions have hardly been normal. They are pretty new in the whole of human history. So, all this crap about "redefining marriage" is just nonsense! Marriage has been defined and redefined dozens of times throughout history. Not every civilization has the same definition. There is no "5,000 years of recorded history" of Western marriage. It's just not there. Where these cretins get this idea is beyond me.
Maybe if they'd take an anthropology class or something, they'd finally understand.
In Kenya, for instance, there actually is a form of gay marriage (although it's not purely gay). In this ceremony, an infertile woman from the Nandi tribe can "marry" a younger, more fertile woman, and that younger woman will have sex with the man to have children (or produce boys, if I remember correctly). However, the 2 women who "marry" aren't actually in love, and it's more of a contractual arrangement for convenience. The younger woman, after she gives birth to at least one boy, is allowed to have sex with the man, and the older woman can no longer. She's more like a servant or caretaker now.
In many different cultures, like the Imbonggu in New Guinea, marriage is hardly for love. When children reach the ages of 7-10, they are initiated by the elders and trained to be warriors. At the end, they are selected wives. These wives, as all women, are considered inferior to the man in Imbonggu culture, and thus, she is limited in the marriage. The main purpose for the man is to have sex and have kids, as well as the woman serving as partially his "servant." There's not a lot of affection shown between the 2 spouses. And Imbonggu is one of many polygamous cultures, as men are allowed and even encouraged to have more than one wife.
Polygamy is still widely practiced in the developing and underdeveloped world. Men can have as many wives as possible, or they can have multiple, but there's a limit (such as Arab states that allow up to 4). Western romance and marriage rituals are not the norm worldwide. They are relatively new throughout human history.
In many cultures, marriage is more of an arrangement to unify and align different tribes. A member of one tribe marries another, and they form a bond of protection and kinship. They are allies.
In places like India, marriages are arranged, not necessarily for alliances, though. Many husbands and wives do learn to love each other later on, but oftentimes they do not at the beginning.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Western marriage rituals and traditions have hardly been normal. They are pretty new in the whole of human history. So, all this crap about "redefining marriage" is just nonsense! Marriage has been defined and redefined dozens of times throughout history. Not every civilization has the same definition. There is no "5,000 years of recorded history" of Western marriage. It's just not there. Where these cretins get this idea is beyond me.
Maybe if they'd take an anthropology class or something, they'd finally understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
