Slut-punishing

Affirming the rights of the unborn IS NOT ABOUT PUNISHING PROMISCUOUS WOMEN!

...

That is all.

A Roebot has questions for me...

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/01/03/even-more-questions-for-pro-lifers/

1: Even if personhood starts at fertilization, citizenship still comes at birth, a more convenient date.

2: Infant mortality used to be so high it through this off. The solution is simple: we use the mean age of death.

3: No.

4: I fail to see your point. There's a difference between someone being killed and dieing of natural causes. Gay rights activists protest hate crimes, not STDs.

5: Even now prenates can have insurance.

6: If the mother knows she is pregnant and behaves overly recklessly she should be charged with child endangerment.

7: She should be charged with voluntary manslaughter under duress.

8: http://l4l.org/library/thomviol.html

9: Yes.

10: The same as they'll have after birth.

11: Clearly, not everyone who comes in would use their own eggs. A woman would have the procedure, and the next women would use the excess eggs.

12: Imagine there's a man in front of you with a bulge in his coat and there's an 80% chance he'll shoot you. These cases arise all the time, and there are legal procedures in place to deal with them.

Roebots have this thing where they think they can trip you up on really simple questions.

**NEWSFLASH***

Simple questions have simple answers.

Comments

It's been brought to my attention that comments are broken on some posts. Until I can get this fixed, comment here, with a link to the post.

I guess I lied...

I thought it was impossible for someone to have a negative IQ. But the North Dakota House voted for a bill giving personhood to all human beings, and Amanda Marcotte (yes, the one I said I'd not be reading anymore) was like "ZOMG SPERM HAVE MOAR RITES DAN WOMYN!!!1eleven"

No, I'm serious.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/another_attempt_to_grant_sperm_more_rights_than_women/

"It’s about making sure that sperm, once released inside women, are not obstructed from impregnating a woman and maintaining that pregnancy."

Umm... what? Sorry, but this bill only applies to zygotes onwards, not sperm. Any efforts possible may be made to stop the sperm from fertilizing the egg. 

A comment:

"Unfuckingbelievable.

I really don’t care if a fertilized egg is a person. No person has a right to enslave me, glom onto my body, and use it for life support against my will."

Okay. Once this bill passes the Senate, try to make that point.

You can't. He or she didn't "glom onto [your] body". You [freaking] put it there! You're basically saying you can consent to throwing a rock at someone's window but not consent to it breaking. You're basically saying you can destroy someone's house, then say they're stealing and trespassing for staying with you while it's being fixed. You're basically saying you can drag someone on board your plane, then claim they have no right to be there and shove them off at 5000 feet.

And let's assume you're right. Even so, abortion is not just detaching; it is as if, in Thompson's Violinist scenario, you were to brutally rip the violinist to shreds to stop him from using your body. It's as if you had injured him in thje first place!

That's your problem; if you truly thought the personhood of the unborn was irrelevant, you wouldn't be opposing this bill so vehemently.

Also, it's "un-be-fucking-lievable".

Another comment:

"Uh, aren’t cancer cells “organisms with the genome of homo sapiens”?"

Uh, no.

Another comment:

"I think platelets, like red blood cells, don’t have cell nuclei, hence no (complete) human genome. Of course, if you take the thing completely literally, a spitball should be able to run for public office."

One: it does not say "anything with a human genome". It says any organism with a human genome.

Two: Not all persons may run for public office. Foreigners can't, young people can't, and corporations, who are legally people, can't.

Some people's heads are so empty I swear they're full of antimatter. Except then they would explode. Which would be awesome.Anyone know how to block a site from your computer? I can feel my braincells dieing.

Sorry if the font is weird here. I can't seem to fix it.

War

Whenever I point out all the immoral things that happen in war, I get "That's what happens in war". This is an appeal to common practice.

If these things come with war, it's pretty obvious war must end.

Oh, and please forgive the wonky fontage on a few of these posts; I'm still trying to fix that.

North Dakota

You all know my opinion on this. I'm just posting this unless you hadn't heard.

Here's hoping the Senate passes it (track it here)...

Zero Tolerance

It looks good on paper, but it's not. It doesn't make you tough on crime; it makes you lazy.

And suspending a four-year-old for hugging a teacher, or suspending a 6-year-old for bringing lemon drops, or forcing a student into drug therapy for using "lookalike" drugs in an anti-drug commercial class project, or calling a teenage girl a drug trafficer for sharing her inhaler with a student suffering a severe asthma attack, you don't look tough on crime either.

You look stupid.

Woah.

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2759.html

Just. Wow.

Voting Age

Some ten-year-olds are mature and knowledgeable enough to vote. Then again, some aren't. But the characteristics you list obviously aren't determiners of one's rights. A completely stupid and uneducated 18-year-old is still allowed to vote, but a politically knowledgable and opinionated 16-year-old cannot.

Some people still think Obama was born in Kenya, or is a Muslim. They still have the right to vote. Many people voted for Bush because he was the same intelligence level as them. Some people thing the Holocaust never happened, or the moon landing was faked, or the government planned 9-11. They are still allowed to vote. If anything, voting rights should be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, this would clearly be unfeasable, as whoever controlled the test would control the world.

It used to be thought that women were too stupid to vote, or would just vote with their husbands. Now, it is true that young people would tend to vote with their parents. So do old people. The number one fector in determining one's political affiliation is one's upbringing. However, the secret ballot ensures that nobody will be intimidated by anyone else to change their vote.
Different age groups generally have different needs. These needs will not be met if they have to wait to vote, as they will then have different needs. When you get right down to it, voting is about expressing your opinion, and your opinion cannot be wrong.

Children are the future. The future is now.

Appeal to society

This is not a common or official term, but I'm using it to encompass ad populums, ad antiquitatems, and appeals to common practice.

Those attempting to initiate social change often see this. Those in favor of youth rights hear appeals to society frequently. Being against the current state of traditions, social morres, social structures, or society in general is framed as being anti-society, with a negative connotation.

History has taught us that society can be wrong. The Colonists faced capital punishment for High Treason if they failed, but I'm sure my American readers will recognize they did the right thing. Rosa Parks keeping her seat was not immature. The early feminists were fighting against society. They were probably seen as having some sort of pathological disregard for simple social structures. But they were far from evil and any inability to function in the "real world" (i.e., the social structure they were attempting to fix) was not their fault, but that of society.

This happens so often we have a term for it: "ahead of your time". Anyone who is ahead of their time would seem dysfunctional. Imagine if you were transported back in time, or to anywhere with ancient barbaric practices. You may be seen as dysfunctional if you refuse to burn a girl for going to school, or refuse to stone adultresses, or refuse to throw disabled infants into a Spartan cliff, or if you dare to speak out against sexism, or racism.

Those attempting to initiate social change do so of their own free will. No matter how much an opponent may like the status quo, the revolutionaries are "controlling themselves", and do not by default have to be reigned in by The Powers That Be for the crime of Free Will.

Verb tense

I've been told that the young are not equal to the old, even if they should be.

That makes no sense. It's like asking whether rape should bbe immoral. It is or it isn't. The young are equal to the old, regardless of whether they are recognized or treated as such.

Women were always equal, regardless of whether or not their equality was recognized.

Breakthrough

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2751.html

Just stop acting like those against stem cell research are anti-science.

Please.

Equality

Let's imagine a scenario. Let’s say, in a school scenario, A is keeping B inside a room because B did something to displease A. B repeatedly asks to be let out, but A doesn't listen. Let's examine what heppens when we fill the roles with different people.

Let's say A is a teacher and B is a student.

• Who is thought to be at fault here? The student.
• Who is considered the victim here? The teacher.
• Who is blamed for the disruption of adjacent classes? The student.

Now, if we reverse the roles (A is a student and B is a teacher), something interesting happens.

• Who is thought to be at fault here? The student.
• Who is considered the victim here? The teacher.
• Who is blamed for the disruption of adjacent classes? The student.

Nothing happens. This is interesting; a reversal of roles should reverse the answers. The student is still blamed. But what should it be? To find out, let's put a student in both roles, or put a teacher in both roles.

Let's say A is a student and B is a student.

• Who is thought to be at fault here? B.
• Who is considered the victim here? A.
• Who is blamed for the disruption of adjacent classes? B.

Let's say A is a teacher and B is a teacher.

• Who is thought to be at fault here? B.
• Who is considered the victim here? A.
• Who is blamed for the disruption of adjacent classes? B.

Now, for fun, let's say A is keeping B in the room. If both are students...

• Who is thought to be at fault here? A.
• Who is considered the victim here? B.
• Who is blamed for the disruption of adjacent classes? A.

If both are teachers...

• Who is thought to be at fault here? A.
• Who is considered the victim here? B.
• Who is blamed for the disruption of adjacent classes? A.

The answer is clear.

• Who is at fault? The one outside the room.
• Who is the victim here? The one in the room.
• Who is at fault for the disruption of adjacent classes? The one outside the room.

Of course, this post could not be used in defense of anyone, as that would invoke the Two Wrongs make a right fallacy.

...

Okay, I could see an argument from the fact that they were brought up in an inconsistant, hypocritical, and self-contradictory society, thus confusing the logic behind the scenario, but that goes into the ethics of intent, which is another topic.

God-given rights

The rights-based argument for God goes something like this:

1. Either rights are given by God, or they are given by the state.
2. If rights are given by the state, the state can take them away.
3. Having the state take away your rights would kind of suck.
4. If God does not exist, he could not have given you your rights.
5. Therefore, God must exist.

The first part is a false dichotomy; rights could be inherent. For example, gravity was not granted by God, but that doesn't mean the State could legislate it away.

The second part is an argumentum ad consequentiam, otherwise known as wishful thinking. Something can be true regardless of wheter or not its truth is inconvenient.

White Ribbon

Apparently, the white ribbon is a symbol of the anti-violence against women movement.

...

...wait, there's a pro-violence against women movement?

Friday the 13th

Thursday the 13th is the unlucky day in Hispanic culture.

The existence of a god is just as credible as today being unlucky, and just as relative.

Hiroshima

The WW2 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral; the US government is guilty of genocide and mass murder. Regardles of whether or not the war was ended early, thousands of innocents were killed. If more had been killed in a longer war, it would be the fault of the individuals who killed them, not those who did not murder innocent men, women, and children.

The Poor States of America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88218

...WTF?

Thoughtcrime

BTW, the word does not come from 1984. In 1984 it was crimethink.

I'm sick of thoughtcrime. Hate crime laws add an extra punishment for bigotry. People are demonized for mere sexual fetishes. Make it stop!

Science

Here's a note to all creationists or supporters of "Intelligent Design". Develop a cohesive theory and put it through the scientific method. Don't just try to legislate it into schools. Science is a meritocracy, not a democracy. Creationism may be supported by a majority of Americans, but there is still no evidence to back it up.

ESC research funding

I said a couple days ago that President Obama would not be signing an executive order funding embryonic stem cell research. I was wrong.

Wikipedia

This is a note to all professors/teachers.

You have been pwned.

ESC research

To all the supporters of embryonic stem cell research:

1. ESC research has not helped a single patient. ASC research has helped many, many patients with dozens of diseases. It has even helped cure some diseases believed to be curable only through ESC research.
   
2. Stop acting like banning the destruction of human embryos is some huge affront to science. Science must always be bound by ethics. There are standards for experiments with human participants. That's why we don't see much vivisection of infants anymore.
   
3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172631.htm
   

iPS cell research

Three dozenth post!

News is Obama won't sign an executive order funding ESC research (which has not helped a single patient). Hopefully this will lead to more adult stem cell research (which has helped many), or iPS cells, that work the same as ESC cells but minus the ethical issues.

Randomness

Nobody says the unverse came from random chance any more than planets randomly become round or snowflakes randomly form hexagonal shapes. Some, however, are saying there are pixies in coudtop snowflake factories with ice cubes and little magic chisles.

Replies

I've been noticing I've been getting replies on a few posts, but only a few topics really allow for me to have a dialogue with my readers, and that's what I want to use the comments for. Click here for a list of all of my posts where I do something such as pose a question. As of this posting, only one such post has replies.

Personhood Amendment

I suggest the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment XVIII

SECTION 1. The terms "person" and "persons" as used in this Constitution applies to all human beings at every stage of their biological development from the moment of fertilization, irrespective of race, sex, age, health, function, or condition of dependency.

SECTION 2. The Congress and the several States shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation within their respective jurisdictions.

Etymological misunderstandings

Note to all feminists: before making up a new word, research the etymology of the original.

Here are some common feminist neologisms, and why using them makes you look stupid:

1. womyn
   
2. herstory*
   
3. ad feminam - "Ad hominem" means "to the person". "To the man" would be "ad virum". "Ad feminam" implies women aren't human. How's that for irony?
   

Don't even try "femail" (female comes from the same root as feminism), womanufacture, or "femstruation"!

There are no prefixes "wo-", "hu-"**, or "fe-". If a cow was called a "wobull", or if bovines were called "hubulls" you might have a case.*** Pairs like "(wo)man" and "(fe)male" are purely coincidental (cf. "girl"/"boy") and do not shape anyone's opinion of women or of gender roles in general. Making up words without looking into the etymology of the original, however, makes me think less of you.

Now, I'm not saying you don't have a right to call yourself a "womon"; I have the right to call myself a "rugaflax" if I want to.

I'm just saying, were I to excersize my equal right to call you a moron for doing so, I would be much more justified.

*I know this is just a pun poking at the percieved male-centricity of history. The only problem is that, in most of history, women weren't permitted to do anything important.

**"Human" comes from the same root as "Homo sapiens".

***Interesting note: Many peopleactually use "cow" as gender-neutral like "man" is often used. Is that misandry? No.

EDIT: The etymological origins of the word "feminazi" and its links to Glenn Beck have come to my attention. To apologize for any misunderstanding, here's a webcomic!