Upcoming Holiday Posts

Hello reader(s).

I have been quite busy with school of late, hence the lack of updates. I shall remain on hiatus until the 10th of December, at which point I will once again start up my usual Wednesday and Sunday posts. I have a series of special holidays posts lined up, sure to make any grinch smile (and probably only the grinches at that). Until then, later.

Definitions and Semantics

I am going to end my little logic thing rather short, I’ll address further fallacies as they come up. This topic does still tie in a little bit.

Many times, arguments come down to definitions and semantics.  Often we try to work around that, avoid arguing semantics, but it is a significant enough issue that I think it needs to be addressed. I will discuss the problems I see with definitions in three issues that have come up in my own life recently, spanning the categories of sex, politics, and religion.  In the realm of sex, there’s the semantics of the “rape fantasy.” In the realm of politics, the use of the terms “life” and “murder” in the abortion debate, and on the religion front, the very definition of the words “atheism” and “agnosticism.”  In each of these situations, I will refrain from stating my opinion on the actual issue, as that is not the purpose of this post.

 

Starting with the issue of the rape fantasy. Some will consider this normal, while others are opposed to even the thought. Of all the arguments I have seen with regards to this issue, all problems revolve around the word “rape.”

Let me take a moment to say that rape is something I am vehemently opposed to. It is not something to be taken lightly.

That being said, in terms of the rape fantasy, in most situations I have encountered, the term “rape” could easily be replaced with the term “control” or “power.” When in the head, it exists entirely in the realm of fantasy, and in my opinion is not really worth addressing here. Where the issue comes up is in the physical. When it is a role-played or simulated rape. In this case, the act is a consensual power-play act,  generally discussed and planned out beforehand, wherein the dominated has the power to continue with or end the scenario as they see fit. It fits rather nicely into the realm of dominance and submission, a series of acts wherein the phrase “Safe, Sane, Consensual” takes precedence over all aspects.

As stated before, the actual act of rape is not something to be taken lightly. Non-consensual sex harms people both physically and mentally. To many, the act is on par with, perhaps even worse than murder.

Considering the vile nature of actual rape, it is not difficult to see why such opposition to “rape fantasies” exists. The rape fantasy could be viewed as desiring, even glamorizing the act of rape. However, very few would be opposed to a simple consensual “control fantasy.” The definitions and connotations of the word “rape” complicate what would otherwise be a simple, consensual act.

 

Moving on, abortion. Anyone who has ever been in an abortion debate can attest that the arguments boil down to “when does life begin.” Life. There is quite a bit of conflict to that word. What’s it mean?

The pro-life crowd will say that “life” starts at conception. Common arguments revolve around the religious concept of the soul and the potential for the fetus to become a full grown person. To them, the soul and the potential, the simple fact that the cells are “alive” means it has “life,” and to end that is indeed “murder.”

On the other end of the spectrum, “life” doesn’t start the instant the sperm penetrates the egg. To the pro-choice crowd, “life” doesn’t begin until much later. Definitions on this side vary, from the development of nerves, to the brain, even as far as brain wave activity, which doesn’t start until 26 weeks. Further arguments on this side ask why it is ok to kill an insect or small animal, which have brains, central nervous systems, perhaps even self awareness, while it is “murder” to kill the homogeneous clump of cells that exists shortly after conception? Apparently killing what is “alive” isn’t always “murder,” so what defines having “life” as opposed to merely being “alive,” and what defines “murder.”

Until these terms can be agreed upon, no real productive argument can be had between the two sides.

 

Lastly, there’s the atheists and the agnostics. Unlike the previous, this pertains more so to perception of the groups rather than any arguments between the two.

In my experience, the definitions of “atheism” and “agnosticism” differ between the self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics and society. Within the community, there is a differentiation between the gnostic and agnostic atheist; the gnostic atheist believes there is no god, while the agnostic atheist lacks belief in god. The overwhelming majority of atheists I have met, myself included, fall into the agnostic atheist category. Furthermore, within the community, agnostics are considered those who either unwilling to commit to to a specific belief or lack thereof.

Amongst society, however, the definition of the agnostic atheist is applied to the agnostic, while the definition of the gnostic atheist is applied to all atheists.

The problems caused by this tend to manifest in discussion and perception of atheists and agnostics both inside and outside the atheist community. The self-identified agnostic is often viewed as a lazy thinker or one still grasping onto their faith by atheists, while society in general vies the agnostic as being more logical or “safer” than the atheist, and easier to relate to. The self-identified atheist is generally more readily welcomed into the atheist community, but society in general tends to view the atheist as being a “god-hater,” someone to keep your children away from.

Until the two groups can reconcile these differences, there will continue to be problems between the theist and atheist communities, and furthermore problems within the atheist community itself.

The False Dichotomy

The first logical fallacy I’d like to cover is the False Dichotomy, sometimes called the False Dilemma or the Either-Or Fallacy. The False Dichotomy is the presentation of only two options, usually when more than two exist. You are either for or against us. Black or white, this or that, no shades of grey.
I chose this as the first fallacy to go over as I believe it is one of the most prevalent in modern media. Turn on the news or open a paper and watch out for presentations of only two positions. A quick trip to the CNN front page presents numerous articles with this fallacy. An article about the Affordable Health Care Act, which presents the view that it is either this bill or nothing. Admittedly at this time that may be the case, but new legislation proposing alternate solutions is an option unexplored by the media.  H1N1 is a huge deal vs H1N1 is overblown. Marijuana legalization will lower crime and benifit the economy vs Marijuana legalization will send the nation into chaos. No grey area here, not third opinion, just two positions.

Politics  and the media perception of it is an area riddled with this fallacy. Almost every issue in existance is boiled down to a for or against, Republican or Democrat, red or blue issue. Abortions should be handed out like candy or not at all. Guns for everyone or guns for no one. Barack Obama or John McCain. No room for situational exceptions, background checks, or Bob Barr in any of those.

Why leave out these middleground and alternative options? Simple, because it works. How many people do you know that agree with every issue a certain political party holds? Might you even be one of them? Have you actually looked into these positions, or have you simply bought the drivel spewed forth by your party and the media? I am sad to say I know countless people who are like this, and they will not even stop to consider something outside their well established yet unresearched and unfounded opinion.

Going a bit tin-foil hat at the moment, it seems to me the powers that be are more than aware of their ability to use the false dichotomy to remain the powers that be. As long as they can keep the people divided over everything, keep all the issues two-sided, the people will continue to support their two sided system. A powerful third party is a threat to the career politicians and power mongers.

Keep your eyes open for false dichotomies. Look into issues fully. Many times, there are third options far superior to either option presented by the politicians and media.

Lying with Numbers

I have decided to take a brief break from discussing things of a controversial nature so as to write a brief series on logical fallacies and errors, and how they are used to deceive you. I figure this is rather important, not only for discussing things of a controversial nature, but for keeping you aware in your every day life.

I wish to start this series by discussing numbers; more specifically, units of measurement. I will lead in with an example.

Not long ago, I had a discussion with a professor of mine with regards to this very topic. She mentioned a friend of hers who, during their jury duty interview, was asked if they could convict someone for possession of 6000 mg of marijuana.

6000 is a really big number, would you not agree? According to my professor, many of the people there were quick to respond with a hearty “yes,” seemingly astounded one could have that much marijuana. My professor’s friend, however, saw what was being said, and how they were attempting to deceive him. 6000 mg is the same as 6 grams, the weight of a US quarter. This was no truckload of marijuana, this was maybe half a dime bag.

The point here is learn and watch your units. It’s easy to inflate or deflate number used by switching to equivalent units.

Slightly more complicated units. In discussion with regards to mercury, whether it be in vaccinations, high fructose corn syrup, or your thermometer, people like to throw out interesting numbers. Much like above, people may convert from micrograms to nano or picograms in order to inflate the number, or from parts per million to parts per billion or trillion. Changing the units of measurement completely is another very effective tactic of lying with numbers.

Sticking with the mercury example, one common comparison with anything regarding mercury is fish, and quite often, tuna fish. A Thimerosal preserved flu shot contains 3.68 ppm mercury, whereas tunafish contains .353 ppm mercury. Based on this number, it seems the shot has ten times the mercury as tuna, and in a very specific way, this is true. However, with a little math, we discover that both a flu shot and a 5 oz tuna sandwich both contain 50 micrograms of mercury.

Why is that? The ppms differ by an order of magnitude, yet the masses of mercury are the same. Simple. “ppm” is a measure of concentration, or solvent per solution (in this case, unit mercury per unit vaccine and unit mercury per unit tuna fish) while mass is a measure of, well, mass. Because the actual amount of vaccine is much less than the amount of tuna, the amount of mercury in both the vaccine and the tuna sandwich is about equal. Since this is about numbers, I’ll not take that any further.

To parallel this is something more easy to visualize, imagine a car and a bicycle. The car goes 60 mph, and the bike, 6. The care is an order of magnitude faster than the bike. However, if the bike were to travel for ten times the amount of time as the car, they would both end up traveling the same distance. So again, by changing the units of measurement, we can change what the numbers convey.

One last example of lying by numbers. There are 45 million smoker in the United States. Again, a huge number. However, there are 300 million people in the United States. So only around 15% of the population smokes.

This tactic I see quite often. Give a number of cases, without giving the size of the sample set. Many times, when the whole sample set is considered, the number of individual cases is rather insignificant.

I shall continue this series Sunday.

A brief hiatus

Due to both school and personal life, I happen to be very scrapped for time. I will likely not be posting any new material this month. I apologize.

Racial Pride = Self-Segregating Tribalism

Much like the feminism I mentioned in my last post, racial pride did have it’s place in the civil rights movement. Also like the feminism, it has mostly been replaced with supremacy.

Only fifty years ago segregation, poll taxes, and literacy tests were very real in the United States. During this time, when blacks were looked upon as inferior people, pride was very important in the struggle for equality. While all races are legally equal, racism is alive and well. Some may say that gives reason for even stronger racial pride, but I would argue that said pride does more to fuel racism than to prevent it.

Much of this comes down to semantics. Let us consider pride itself. I cannot say for certain, but it seems to me the word likely started being used in the racial sense to show that one was unashamed of their skin tone. Not being ashamed is good, and “proud” has a certain ring to it that “unashamed” does not. By this definition, “pride” simply means self-respect. However, in typical conversation, the term “proud” is used to describe feelings as a result of an event or action, ie, I was rather proud of my performance at the concert. Again, there is self-respect here, mixed with a bit of glee, but in this case it is more excessive, as it often correlates with accomplishment.  Problems start arising when people start feeling the accomplishment-related pride simply due to their race.

Your race is not an accomplishment. People have made accomplishments that have furthered various races standings in society. Anyone who took place in these movements has a right to be proud, not because of their skin tone, but because of what they helped accomplish.

I cannot begin to count the times I have heard people claim pride for what “their people” have overcome. Yes, your grandfather overcame segregation. You went to a middle class school and got a decent education. Same education as the other black kids, white kids, mexican kids, asian kids, indian kids, etc. You overcame nothing. You are no better than anyone else, as much as your pride makes you think you are.

One of the problems with that pride, a problem I noticed back in high school, is the pride of one’s own race leads to self segregation. One is proud of their own race, and can only share that pride with people of the same race. They can’t share their black pride with the mexicans just as the mexicans can’t share their mexican pride with the blacks. So they stick with “their people.” From there, they perpetuate their culture, good aspects and bad aspects (I’ll refrain from getting into that now), and further isolate themselves from each other. Animosity arises because the others are different. And idea of supremacy develops. Racism perpetuates, due to racial pride.

You had no choice regarding what race you were born as. Taking pride in it is participating in ignorant and destructive tribalism.

Apologies for the Delay

I am rather busy with life today, so you’ll have to accept my apologies in lieu of the usual Sunday post.

How Feminism has outlived its usefulness.

Not too long ago, women treated as second class citizens. Some may argue that this is still the case today, but even if that is the case, the progress has been drastic. The Feminist movement has brought men and women to near equal ground in the United States. Yes, women do make less money than men. Yes, women are objectified. We’re not completely equal, but, if you’ll pardon the expression, I believe we have reached a point where we are equally unequal.

What do I mean? Women are underrepresented in many areas of the workforce, but often times they are promoted over men in order to “increase diversity in management” or some other PC junk. Same goes for colleges, especially in male dominated fields. Women pretty much win by default in cases of child custody, or any case where it is simply his word against hers. I could continue on, but I’d rather not devote an entire post to how everyone is equally unequal.

So yes, I am concerned about women’s rights (and minority rights, gay rights, etc). but I am also concerned with men’s rights (and white people’s rights, straight people’s rights (ok, I’ll admit, I cannot think of how straight people have their rights infringed, but there’s probably something)). And therein lies the first problem of the name of feminism.

Look at the name. Feminism. Root word, female. The etymology clearly shows concern strictly for the woman. By definition, feminism is entirely concerned with advancement of women’s rights, women’s place in the world. And in this state of near equality, it leads the cause to be lead by a certain group of people.

I still sometimes will use the word to describe myself, and will defend self proclaimed feminists. They seem to use the word, contrary to its etymology, to mean one that strives for equality for both sexes. However, these people tend not to be the voice of Feminism. The once good name has been hijacked by misandrists and female supremacists. People who’s goal is no longer social equality, but superiority. Their seizure of the word serves only to discredit those who genuinely strive for equality.

Further still, much of the legislation passed by the feminist movement now serves a counterproductive role. For instance, the ability and ease of which a woman can sue an employer for sex discrimination actually discourages hiring of women. Hire an incompetent man, fire him, done deal. Hire an incompetent woman, it may be less financially risky to keep her on than to risk a lawsuit. The ease at which a woman can, with her word alone as evidence, get a man convicted for sexual assault has, for many men, caused distrust in women.  A rather bizarre anecdote; I have, on a couple occasions, picked up hitchhikers, always male. Some may say I’m taking a risk, but I figure odds are he’s just down on his luck and needs to be somewhere else. I have never, and will never pick up a female hitchhiker. All she’d have to do is take my plates, claim I assaulted her, and I guarantee I’d be in prison. Female hitchhikers, you’ve lost at least one potential ride thanks to the result of the feminist movement. The list goes on, legislation meant to help women and increase their opportunities now serves to restrict them.

Due to the rich history of the feminist movement, it may be difficult for many to abandon the name. However, I believe at this point, if gender equality is to be reached, a new movement needs to be started. Not a masculinist movement; much as feminism is serving to divide in this time of equal inequality, masculism will do the same. I am advocating a genuine gender equality movement. Admittedly, “Gender Equalist” doesn’t have the nice sound that “Feminist” has, but it is much more accurate a term, and it is devoid of the supremacist stigma feminism has begun to develop.

And an aside, virtually all of this applies to race based initiatives and organizations as well. I’m looking at you, NAACP, LIF, and other such organizations.

Newspeak…I mean, Political Correctness

Newspeak, the legally enforced national language in George Orwell’s 1984, was designed to simplify the language, censoring and thus extinguishing any thoughts that conflict with the government’s totalitarian rule. If it cannot be said, it cannot be thought, or so the theory goes. Of course, such notions exist entirely in the realm of fiction; there’s no way such an idea can come to fruition in the real world…right?

Call someone a nigger or a fag and see how long it takes to end up with at least a fine for hate speech, then see if your answer is any different. And yes, I said (or wrote) nigger and fag; I’m an adult, I’ll not dumb down my arguments with childish terminology like “The n-word” or “The f-bomb” and the like. I’ll go ahead and get the juvinile love for cursing taken care of right now and get rid of a few more readers by saying the word is nigger (and for the sake of equality cracker, ,spic, wetback, towelhead, chink, kraut, gook, and mutt). The word is fag. It’s shit, piss. fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits (and Carlin would have not been funny if it were “the s-word, urine, the f-word…”).

So, since you still seem to be reading, let’s get to the meat of the issue. Why is it that certain words are forbidden in the name of political correctness.? Some cite protecting the children. But then why is it that when discussing this topic amongst adults, we still default to the silly euphemisms rather than actually say the word itself (unless you’re John McCain)? Others cite not offending. Why then are we not offended when someone uses “crap” or “gosh darn,” but as soon as it is “shit” and “god damn,” all bets are off. Others still cite lack of creativity. We don’t discourage the lousy artist. We don’t buy his work, but we let him keep at it. Yet we actively try to prevent the apparently uncreative words from being used.

As far as I can tell, there isn’t actually a logical reason certain terms are not allowed to be used. Social expectation and acceptance is the only reason I can see. However, I believe this to be a very poor reason.

How can words that are taboo be understood if they are not discussed. Keep them taboo only serves to empower the words. Crazy as it may seem, it may require desensitization in order to truly grasp the absurdity of the word. In addition to the empowerment words receive by censorship, those censored may feel repressed and thus attempt to rebel.

Furthermore, the political correctness serves to divide, rather than to promote unity. The reaction garnered by certain words empowers them, thus providing ammunition to those who seek to divide. If I use a slur on somone, and they go ballistic, it simply affirms my superiorty. However, if they do not react with excessive offense, their lack of concern serves to disempower the would-be offender.

If someone wishes to call someone a queer cock-garbling gutter slut, so be it. Better to allow them to convey they are not worth your time than to be deceived in the name of political correctness.

Dissecting the Traditional Relationship

From as early as I can remember, it was instilled in me that I would grow up, get married, and have children. Here I am, age 24, and I’ve never even dated, nor do I really have the desire to. Some may say I am missing out, others may go so far as to say I am broken, but I am happy as I am. That being said, as someone on the outside, I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking in, trying to understand. What makes friendships and capitol R Relationships different? Are they really that different? Is this distinction even necessary?

Full disclosure, I have no qualms with polyamory, and based on behaviors that commonly mark the distinction between a friendship and a relationship, some might say that I am involved in multiple romantic relationships. I would disagree with the latter part, which will make sense as I go.

So, where is the line between friendship and “something more” actually defined? Ask a million different people and you’ll get a million different answers. Some will cite a feeling that apparently defies description. Others will draw the line at physical affection. I’ve heard answers that span everywhere inbetween.

Once the line is established, it is accepted that people distinctly fall on one side or the other. For the monogamous majority, only one person can fall on the relationship side, but even amongst the polyamorous, the line still exists. What I find most interesting about this line is the limitations and expectations it sets up. Several behaviors are considered exclusive to the Relationship; these behaviors are expected of those in a Relationship, and expressly forbidden for those outside of one. Much like the definition, these behaviors vary from person to person. Use of pet names, purchase of gifts or meals, frequent conversation, especially via phone, IM, or email, and extensive travel for visitation tend to fall on the Relationship side for most people. These things are just not done outside the Relationship, and especially not with “just friends” while in a Relationship. They are considered disrespectful at best and may be considered cheating at worst. Furthermore, once one officially enters a Relationship, these activites are expected. It is as though the act of dating instantly changes the whole relationship.

But why establish these limits and expectations? As far as I can tell, they only serve to limit friendships, and break relationships. Gestures of affection in a friendship bring rise to questions of motive. Failure to meet the expectations, even in a young relationship, bring question to the depth of feeling. The line breaks the natural growth of feelings of love and trust amongst people.

How many times have you caught yourself choosing your words carefully, offering a handshake rather than a hug, or refraining from calling a friend in need, lest your actions be interpreted as romantic advances? I am ashamed to admit that I am guilty of multiple counts of each. It is sad that people feel they must limit the affection they show to people they care about due to silly, rather arbitrary limitations on friendship.

So why follow them? Why not cast off these restrictions? If a friend is feeling down, give them a hug and a phone call later to see how they’re doing. Hell, if they’re a friend, give them a hug and a phone call to see how they’re doing. Feelings are too complex to lump into two neat boxes of “friends” and “relationships.” If a friendship with one person ends up naturally advancing to individual outings, or “dates,” so be it. If that happens with multiple people, that’s cool too (just make sure all of them are cool with it (and honestly, in my opinion, if one of them isn’t, that’s their problem)). I’d even go so far as to say if one or more friendships grow to a point where physical affection is shared, including sex, that’s fine too. No arbitrary limits and no forced expectations, just natural development of the relationship. So long as all people involved are aware and ok with it, I see no reason why one person could not enjoy dinners and movies with person A, dancing with person B, and sex with person C. Or dinner, movies, dancing, and sex with all three.

I see no benifit to keeping with the established system, and no downside to just letting relationships be what they will.