True Equality

My possible toddler death moment

ArgusEyes — Tue, 15 May 2012 11:48:54 GMT

So I was waiting in an unknown middle class neighbourhood tonight, awaiting a man to come home so I could have a look at a motorcycle that he was selling (mine being stolen the week before). A woman pulls out of a nearby driveway and passes me; she slows down. She asks if I’m okay, clearly I am a suspicious character lurking in the darkness, her feelings are completely understandable. She seems to forget to close her garage door again and drives on by.

I continue to wait. The man who’s bike I want to see is still not home yet. A small boy who cannot be more than three years old wanders by me. He is talking words that sound like “mummy”, he definitely looked like he didn’t belong there but I was afraid to approach him. To be perfectly honest, I feared how it would look if a strange man would approach a lone child in the night and I let him pass.

A few moments go by and sense kicks in. Rationalisations to stop me moving are overruled and I head in the direction that the boy went. He had headed up the road a short way and I coax him down and try to ask him where his home is. He was only able to speak a few words. A dog barks in the distance.

“Doggy!”

“Yes, Doggy. Can you tell me where home is. Where’s home?”

He walks down the road, back the way he came, I follow beside him making sure to not touch him in any way. As we approach where he passed me originally, I can hear a man’s voice call out. The boy rushes to him and the incident has ended. The father seems quite relieved and he shakes my hand. I look at the bike (quite nice) and leave.

My own story reminds me of a tale I once read about.

On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert."

In the article "Day of the dad: paedophilia hysteria leaves men afraid to help," The Telegraph raises a question that applies equally to North America. Have high profile cases of pedophilia created such public hysteria that the average decent human being, especially a man, is now reluctant to approach a child in need?

…

At the inquest, he stated, "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her."

Instead, he assured himself that the parents must be "driving around" and would find her.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html

This is the case of a man who rationalised himself out of going back. The reasons for his rationalisation were understandable because I now know how he must have felt. Fear. There is a strong urge to not help for fear of what might come from that help.

This fear is not misplaced.

I was accused of abusing a child when I rescued him from drowning. I was swimming on beach and I noticed a 8 or 9 year old kid come off his little surf board and he sunk straight to the bottom, about 10 feet deep. I swam down and rescued the kid and swam him back to the beach.

As soon as I got the child to the beach he was crying and coughing up water, his mother ran down screaming to leave her boy alone. She was screaming at me so loudly that people were crowding around to see what had happened. At this time the life guards turned up and I advised them what happened as I could not talk any sense to the mother. The life guards took the boy and mother to the life guard hut and I went back to my towel on the beach.

One of the life guards came back to me 10 minutes later and ask me to stay where I am because the police have been called and the mother wants to press charges. The cops turned up 20 minutes later and interviewed me and at that time another lady came up to the police and corroborated my story. The cops let me go, no apology from mother who was marching off the beach arguing with the cops after they told her what happened.

If it was not for the other lady I believe I would be sitting in a police cell for rescuing a kid.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/sstzi/a_woman_just_called_me_a_pedophile_after_i/c4grqmk

However, imagine if the situation had been different. Imagine if I had head that sickening sound.. of a car’s wheels screeching followed by a thickening thud. If that had happened then I’d be spending the rest of my life saying “Why oh why didn’t I go immediately to help that child”. The situation was different this time, but it might not have been.

I think the moral of the story is to do the right thing, you may end up in prison or stigmatized by an uncaring beaurocracy, but you’ll regret it for the rest of your life if you don’t.

I often hear the phrase “it’s better to be safe than sorry” or “you can never be too careful” but this example clearly shows that everything in life is a trade-off. If you pump fear into society of “stranger danger”, a fear that is disproportionate to the actual danger, then you will get negative side-effects of that fear. There was another incident in my life that is related to this subject.

I graduated from a university and started to get into photography. We had an annual event at some castle grounds near us featuring lights, carnival rides, candyfloss, that kind of thing. So I went to try and take some cool time-lapse light show photos for my album. I was accosted by a security guard who escorted me to the police tend behind the event outright reporting on his radio that I was taking pictures of the kiddies, no doubt a story reported by a hysterical set of parents to the guard. At the tent they ran some background checks (which of course turned up nothing) and told me that I was welcome to join the event again if I left my camera in my car. “Fuck that” I thought.

Given this treatment. Is it surprising that I choose to stay away from a child in need? One of these days a kid is going to die unnecessarily, in fact they already have.

Transfixed in hate, mouths agape

ArgusEyes — Sun, 13 May 2012 06:58:36 GMT

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/05/may_day_2012.html

I'm so glad that these people can rally to burn and smash things in the name of the most evil belief systems to ever have existed. I'm sure they know nothing at all.

How to write a silly blog

ArgusEyes — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:55:53 GMT

This is really quite silly.

Anti-Tax Group Can’t Spell

Okay, this is funny. A local group in Indiana that opposes a $30 million bond referendum that would fund a new library seems to be in need of a library’s services more than anyone else. They can’t even figure out how to spell the word “oppose.”

…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/29/anti-tax-group-cant-spell/

Brayton runs an echo chamber of a blog. Devoted to singularly anti-conservative posts, which would be fine if you had the substance; but as you can see, the bar is set pretty low as to what gets featured as long as it can be used to throw mud against the people Brayton hates.

I think he needs an editor.

Whatever substance there is here is so silly. An anti-tax group makes a spelling mistake. Therefore what? Therefore what?! There seems to be no other reason than to guffaw at a stereotypically right wing group. Are anti-tax people going to read this post and see the light? What about if I enter “liberal spelling mistake on billboard” into google?

SOUTH BEND, Ind. (WANE/WSBT) – An embarrassing billboard spelling error on a sign meant to tout South Bend schools has been pulled.

The billboard is a digital one near the intersection of State Road 23 and Ironwood in South Bend. It went up on Thursday and was pulled Monday morning.

The billboard encouraged people to go to “southbendon.com” to check out the “15 best things about our PUBIC schools.” Obviously it was supposed to say “public“, but the “l” was left out.
http://crushliberalism.com/2010/09/21/billboard-touts-the-wonderful-education-system-in-south-bend/

Ah. A little more embarrassing wouldn’t you say? Do you think Brayton’s agenda is to point out spelling errors or to throw tantrums?

P.S. For people who will point out posts I have made where there wasn’t a point. I think I’ll concede now, rather than try to justify my own actions.

The kind of skeptics we should be touting

ArgusEyes — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:39:03 GMT

Sanal Edamaruku is one hell of a skeptic.

Sanal Edamaruku, an Indian skeptic, went to Mumbai and revealed that a "miraculous" weeping cross was really just a bit of statuary located near a leaky drain whose liquid reached it by way of capillary action. The local Catholic Church demanded that he retract his statements, and when he refused, they had him arrested for blasphemy.
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html

He was notable a while back for challenging an Indian tantric woo-meister to try and kill him with his magical mind powers.

On this case my feelings should be pretty clear. There is not magic, people who believe this is a miracle are fools and the Catholic church are a bunch of totalitarian thugs and the very idea of a blaspemy law is backwards and oppressive.

I’ve been dismissive in the past of certain people in the skeptic movement, like Rebecca Watson. The reason is that such people don’t seem to do much, they manoeuvre in social circles and increase their own power but they are not the classic debunkers in the mould of James Randi and Sanal Edamaruku. Hell, even though I felt she has been canonised to a silly degree, even Jessica Alquist did something.

Not that you need to debunk things to be a valid figure in the skeptic movement. People who contribute ideas and books such as Michael Shermer, Stephen Pinker, Eugenie Scott, etc, are rightly considered important figures for this very reason.

Sanal is a true skeptic debunker who is doing awesome work in a quite woo-susceptible society. Fair play to him!

That's about it

ArgusEyes — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:29:09 GMT

Gayliens!

ArgusEyes — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:21:34 GMT

Obviously you can't fight the big gay penis in your head. It has no physical form, so you can't get a grip on it, much as you'd like to. You'd love to grab it and throttle it until it splutters its last. That might bring you closure. But no. So you do the next best thing. You condemn homosexuals in the real world. Maybe if they could just stop all this "being gay" business for 10 minutes, you'd get some respite from that scary headcock. It might shrivel away completely, leaving nothing behind. Except maybe a nice bit of bum.

No, dammit! Forget I said that! No bum either!

…

They also claim "there were no LGBT characters in any of the Star Wars movies". I don't know which wacky re-cut version of Star Wars they've been watching, but I saw the original when I was about six years old and even then I was struck by how outrageously camp C3PO is. He was a gilded John Inman in space. And what about Luke Skywalker? Apart from briefly kissing his own sister, he shows no interest in women whatsoever. The first film is a tender gay parable in which Luke falls in love with Alec Guinness and gradually "comes out" as a Jedi. The final scene oozes symbolism: having penetrated the Death Star's trench in his phallic spacecraft, he closes his eyes, submits to his true inner instinct and triumphantly blasts his X-Wing's seed into an anus-like aperture, causing an orgasmic eruption that changes his universe for ever. It's hard to see how they could make Star Wars any gayer, unless they gave the Millennium Falcon a handlebar moustache.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/15/charlie-brooker-gay-video-game

Best. Article. Ever.

By the way. Is bioware still getting away with this? They make a game with sex in it. Furore ensues. Bioware makes tons of money. They make a game with gay sex in it. Furore ensues… Come on guys, catch on.

Wow. This fucker certainly has big brass balls

ArgusEyes — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:14:56 GMT

"I have carried out the most spectacular and sophisticated attack on
Europe since World War II," Anders Behring Breivik told the court.

Breivik said he would do it all again and asked to be acquitted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17737085

Great, so can they call the trial to an end and find this scum guilty then? Also, kill him at the same time. Oh right. Europe.

As the day began, the court was briefly adjourned and one of three lay judges dismissed for saying last July that Breivik should face the death penalty.

Then they would have to dismiss me too if I were in that position. This man should be killed and as soon as possible. There is no doubt as to his guilt and evil.

We don’t need to know where nothing came from

ArgusEyes — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 06:12:44 GMT

I was impressed with Lawrence Krauss’s lecture “A universe from nothing” given at the AAI (Atheist Alliance International), 2009. Like most honest people with a belief system, I am happy when evidence is presented which bolsters what I believe. For a while I too used Krauss’s line “because nothing is inherently unstable” as a retort to the question of “why something from nothing”.

Now Krauss has a book out. Jerry Coyne writes it up:

Further, Krauss defines “nothing” as a “quantum vacuum,” without giving us reasons why that would obviously have been the initial default state of the universe. Is that a sensible definition of “nothing”? If not, whence the quantum vacuum? And so on to more turtles. . .
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/david-albert-pans-lawrence-krausss-new-book/

It also made it to a conservative talk show where the host expressed mockery at the above fact. Paraphrased as “so where did the laws of quantum physics come from eh? eh? eh”.

Conversations with the religious always go the same way, an infinite regression of “where did that come from” culminating in “god didit”. Do atheists really think that filling another one of those blanks will stop the religious from doing this? No, it won’t.

Here’s my advice. Discover the answers because they’re fascinating to know, but don’t discover them because you think it’ll convince the religious out of their delusions. The fundamental flaw of the “where-progression” (I just coined that one for the record) is that it has been wrong for most of human history.

Saying “god” in response to a “why” question was wrong for Ra, the scarab beetle, thor, demons as the cause of disease, the plague, lightning, the planes of the ecliptic, etc.. Then why is it given any shrift when it gets dragged out as a response to the latest point of human ignorance? I used to have problems with the argument of something from nothing or the fine-tuned nature of the universe until I realised that they are the classical religious “reasoning” that has been proved wrong time and time again. Let alone the fact that to use an unexplained thing (god) as an explanation or proof for another unexplained thing is a logical fallacy, akin to saying “we know because we don’t know”, is nuts. It’s like me saying that I don’t know why the moon moves across the sky so it was the work of a cosmic space monkey called Manookalakiki.

Schools. The playground of children, and the totalitarian left

ArgusEyes — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:36:53 GMT

There has been a convergence of three related stories recently.

A New Jersey middle school has banned hugging to prevent excessive physical contact between students.

Principal Tyler Blackmore declared Matawan Aberdeen Middle School a “no hugging school” last week.

…

On Thursday, David Healy, the superintendent of schools for the Matawan Aberdeen Regional School District, defended Blackmore, explaining that the restriction is a response to specific incidents that violated policies on “inappropriate relationships.”

…

“I think it’s a safe policy. Nobody can say something inappropriate has happened if they’re not allowed to do it at all.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/209769/hugging-ban-matawan-aberdeen-middle-school-new-jersey-2012/

New York (CNN) – Divorce. Dinosaurs, Birthdays. Religion. Halloween. Christmas. Television. These are a few of the 50-plus words and references the New York City Department of Education is hoping to ban from the city’s standardized tests.

Matthew Mittenthal, a spokesman for the NYC Department of Education, said this is the fifth year they have created such a list. He said such topics "could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/new-york-city-schools-ban-loaded-words-from-tests/?hpt=hp_c3

TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don't get upset by fall-outs.

Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

...

"They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they're learning to deal with it."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4203460/Schools-ban-children-making-best-friends.html http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/best-friends-ban-in-uk-schools-mirrors-ayn-rands-anthem/

Amazing. Three perfect news stories which all show the left in all its glory. Petulantly striving to establish utopia and control the petty habits of we human beings. In essence, it is totalitarian by nature. Schools are the perfect labs for leftists keen to enact their fascistic tendencies in small realms as opposed to the larger society which they, undoubtedly, would also like to control in similar ways.

To me, one of Thomas Sowell’s best ideas was the idea of “phase one thinking”. That idea is prevalent here. You may spare the rod but you may also spoil the child. A child who had had no discipline may turn out to be a terrible adult, but that outcome will be in the future, out of sight and out of mind. In the here and now, a place which preoccupies the leftist mind, the image of a crying child or the discomfort of applied discipline is all that the mind is focused on.

The hearts of people who do this may be good you think. After all, don’t they wish to alleviate suffering? Maybe, but look at the way they do it. The solution is always to impose their will upon others, to control other human beings and to forcefully change their lives; are such people truly good? I don’t think so.

The self-esteem of the people who would do this to children is great indeed, they are so sure in their anointed position that they can impose it on mouldable minds. So great are they that they think they can break the nature of people. For such an end, what cost?

Children hug, they need to be stopped from doing so by an all-powerful authority enacting an ideology.

Children will have best friends, the unequal quality of human personalities and the uniqueness of one’s own tastes dictates that a child will like some more than others, to stop this natural process from happening, they need to be stopped from doing so by an all-powerful authority enacting an ideology.

Children will encounter things that makes them upset, it’s inevitable in life, to stop this process is not only impossible, but it will come with an all-powerful authority with hooks into all aspects of life.

God help us (ironically said of course) in the hands of these incredible and dangerous fools.

Do TV writers make the women smarter on purpose? Political correctness and stargate SG1

ArgusEyes — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:49 GMT

I’m working my way through a sci-fi series called stargate SG1 at the moment. It has quite an annoying habit of making the female members of the team the smartest science geeks. I was pondering why they do this.

The obvious reason that comes to mind is that it would be politically incorrect not to do so. To make the woman the smart one, or even more specifically, to have made her the dumb bumbling one, would surely be met with screeches of sexist, chauvinism, etc. It is simply politically incorrect to suggest that the woman would not be in a position of power since political correctness is itself cultural Marxism, which believes in the principle of distribution of power between seemingly oppressed groups to make those groups equal.

One explanation down. Another explanation, one that does not tickle the instinct of oppression in ourselves, is that men are perceived as being funnier than women; that the woman would not be able to play the bumbling fool as well. I think there is a bit of truth to both explanations.

Another question is, is this intentional or not? Well, I think it is mostly unintentional. Political correctness is a meme or “thought virus” which seeps into the attitudes of people over time. Traditional morality declines and political correctness rushes in to fill the vacuum. A board of writers may make P.C. decisions and all agree without an up-front agenda being stated this happens enough times over to make enough T.V. shows display this samey shtick.

Why do we bend to these idiots?

ArgusEyes — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:28:02 GMT

Pak n' Save has been forced to pull an advertisement promoting "meat week" at its supermarkets after vegetarians complained it was offensive.

The ad first ran on television on Sunday, but it has been pulled from rotation and the company's Facebook page and YouTube while it is reviewed.

Wellington vegetarian Tashee Smith, 24, said she was upset that the sarcastic advertisement made a mockery of her belief system.

It began with a warning to vegetarians to look away while they showed meat on a conveyor belt, which was "okay'', she said.

"Then the punch line of the ad says, 'Alright vegetarians, you can look back now. It's a carrot. Just kidding, it's a sausage'.

"The whole tone of it I felt really was just quite offensive. It was made to offend.''
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6643787/Trick-sausage-ad-offends-vegetarians

So? Sorry, I know that isn’t normally asked these days but so the fuck what lady?

Several people on Facebook also voiced their displeasure about the ad, claiming it was in "bad taste" and vegetarians did not need to be victimised.

These people are products of our modern age. Victims victims everywhere.

Sandra Fluke - Socialism makes people worse and creates antagonism in society

ArgusEyes — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:04:46 GMT

Do you want to know why I’m finding it so hard to return to making videos? Because in many issues of the day, I find myself taking the “a pox on both sides” attitude to it all. Quite often the world seems increasingly foolish and predictable and unwilling to learn. Nevertheless.

Social strife is created when we are all thrown in together to cover more and more products that are being taken from the control of individuals and assumed under the control of the government.

The American healthcare system is a tangled mess on life support. Any suggestions that it is indicative of a free market system must be met with the snort of contempt that such a suggestion deserves. In a free market, the opportunity is there for an insurance company to offer a range of plans that may include such services. As a recent example, I am changing from my mobile provider because they offer very poor plans for a person who is focused on data as opposed to talking minutes. However, if the government forced both companies to cover x free minutes and n free texts for all mobile companies then I suffer as a consumer. Likewise, when you force companies to cover more and more things that are not strictly necessary then the plans become bloated and expensive and the costs become hidden.

When issues become socialised, they become "everyone's business". Another person's contraception becomes a burden on my plans when it could have otherwise been an irrelevant issue in a world of personal responsibility.

Now, can we please stop talking about some fat fuck and his stupid remarks and start talking about what’s really important. Please?

Europe doesn't believe in freedom: France

ArgusEyes — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:36:49 GMT

"French genocide law: President Sarkozy orders new draft"

Sounds fairly common sense doesn't it? After all. Who could possibly be in favour of genocide?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered his government to draft a new law punishing denial of the Armenian genocide after a top court struck down a previous bill.

Oh. The law is to punish the denial of genocide. That's quite different isn't it? Leaving aside physical actions, the denial of a thing is a thought. For the government to punish mere denial is the de-facto punishment of thought and therefore the abrogation of free speech.

This sort of thing isn't new in Europe. In Germany, denial of Hitler's holocaust is punishable by law. As a proponent of freedom, I frequently have to come up against philosophical philistinism on this matter. To support the freedom of a person to say a disgusting thing; is not to support that disgusting thing.

All too often, the simplicity of freedom is violated by the simple facade of being nice or fair to what obviously appears to be the truth. To pick what is an appropriate thought is to take a sledgehammer to the foundations of freedom of speech so that it is not slightly crippled, but rather it lies in a crumbled mess on the floor.

There’s something wrong with them

ArgusEyes — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:39:23 GMT

I’ll tell you, one of the reason I post less about news stories nowadays is that I’ve become desensitised to the demented nature of human beings. When I see the same predictable “trouble in the middle-east” type headline I normally think “why, of course”. Take this recent happening:

At least one person has been killed and 20 injured in a second day of protests in Afghanistan over the burning of the Koran at a US airbase near the Afghan capital.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17123464

A general has apologised, they’ve chanted “death to America”, someone has died..

I utter forth a huge yawn.

Of course they did, though there is still a lot to analyse here. However, the thing that sprung to mind most for me was how fucked up these people are. The US is falling over itself to apologise as one should when one has committed a bad act I suppose. However, no one is asking the obvious question.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

There’s something rotten in the minds of a typical middle eastern Islamists. Their countries are the problems of the world. They are not contributing and yet they are supposed to be Allah’s chosen people. Victimism has set in to a pathological degree so that the tiniest slight causes an outpouring of the simmering hate that was pent in until now. Since the cause of all their ills must be something or someone else (the US in case you hadn’t noticed) then any excuse to play the victim must be exploited.

The burning of a book would not cause this kind of evil amongst balanced, rational people. The onus of this predictable display of humanity is on the Islamists.

Why good people pirate

ArgusEyes — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:19:27 GMT

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

Yo, everything’s racist

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:38:30 GMT

Via arch-fool P.Z. Myers:

I’m a fan of Yo, Is This Racist? even if the answer is almost always “YES”. This particular Q&A seemed particularly appropriate.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/31/word/

That’s a quote for the ages right there. Who’d have thunk it eh?

Anonymous asked: Is it racist that my science teacher sucks balls?

Yo, science education in the US is a fucking political mess of a tragedy, but it’s worth sticking around and at least trying to learn how to apply evidence and logic, because bastardizations of science are basically the favorite tool of the modern racist.

http://yoisthisracist.com/post/16590542766/is-it-racist-that-my-science-teacher-sucks-balls

I must complain. The stereotypical aggressive attitude and phrases such as “yo” here are so racist! This makes blacks look bad.. Racist!

Also.. my back hurts this morning, I think I slept on it wrong. Racist!

Also.. my boss sucks at his job too. RACIST!

The word “racism” doesn’t mean anything anymore. If you call me racist, then you might as well call me a cloud. I’ve got no idea what you mean when you say it. Good job leftists!

Hello there

ArgusEyes — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:00:20 GMT

Its been an age since I last posted anything here. Life’s mad, but that’s not a good excuse.

From being involved in two after-work software collaborations, to trying to learn about ten things at once, to planning a move to another city to… I dropped off. However, my intent to start making videos again is still there. I am experimenting with creating a higher quality format but ultimately I am procrastinating quite a bit.

Mea culpa.

Hugo Schwyzer is a freak + the mentality of male feminists

ArgusEyes — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:22:00 GMT

I first became aware of Hugo Schwyzer when I listened to debates he would have on the Glenn Sacks show (his side). He struck me as a softly-spoken gimp-like character; a man who took an almost fetishistic-like joy in self-flagellation and, by extension, the flagellation of his entire sex. Every solution to every problem was to declare men to be the weak perpetrators of evils based on their terribly flawed patriarchally-based natures. In short, he was a quintessential feminist.

However, whilst we can see why a female may find feminism alluring because it allows them to attach to a movement which offers catnip to blame all their shortcomings and failures in the game of life by buying into the belief that that game is essentially rigged. Feminism is a theory that offers women a chance to feel superior about themselves, whilst also feeling sorry about themselves and acting as the cringing victims.

This double-barreled appeal, whilst seemingly contradictory, has a great pull to it; a pull that we can see in the terrible characters of the many feminists we have run into through the years. The strength of the pull is entirely dependent on being a female though. If you don’t belong to that exclusive club but yet are a feminist, then you are coming into it for entirely different reasons.

I’ve been rather appalled at the Hugo Schwyzer story that has been unfolding unpleasantly lately, but since Ms. Daisy Cutter brought it up and Comrade Physioprof has a good post on it, I thought I’d throw in a few words to the pigpile.

Schwyzer is a professor who lectures on feminism…he’s also a professor who had sex with his students and who tried to murder an ex-girlfriend. We could stop right there; just those acts alone make him contemptible. But for some unfathomable reason, he now makes money lecturing women on feminist ethics and patriarchal culture; would you believe that the title of one of his lectures is “Holding Men Accountable”? And now many people are arguing that he should be recognized as a useful ally for women, that we should forgive and move on, and recognize him as a changed and better person.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/page/2/

P.Z. Myers is himself a cringing politically correct feminist. He is not into it for the same reasons that Schwyzer is though. Myers is a feminist because he sees it as the correct position to take, not morally, but correct in the context of his leftist politically correct nature. To not support the victim group is unconscionable. Myers won’t be “into it” to a degree even approaching Schwyzer though. I don’t think that money is the reason Hugo does his thing. I even don’t think it’s a pursuit of sex. I think he is weak and substantially flawed and riddled with guilt over his own feelings for women. His embrace of feminism is a way of getting acceptance and of being seen as a “right thinking” when the winds change over to a female-centric world.

In short, Schwyzer is messed up and weak, and in desperate need of validation from females.

Please watch this club-carrying primitive

ArgusEyes — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:27:41 GMT

This is exactly how I envisage club-carrying bloodthirsty barbarians as behaving.

Some people in the skeptical blogosphere have been attacking people who are perceived as attacking Hitchens after he’s dead. Nothing comes close in vileness than P.Z. Myers own comments. Truly, there are no enemies on the left.

Farewell to Hitchens. Also, it’s hard to be against the left

ArgusEyes — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:37:07 GMT

Farewell Christopher Hitchens, I barely knew ye.

People in the skeptical blogosphere have been writing posts on this. One that caught by eye for it’s sheer vilefulness is, naturally, one by P.Z. Myers. The dark side of Hitchens.

It’s only fair to balance the light — Hitchens was a glorious writer and rhetorician, an advocate for atheism, and a brave human being — with the dark, and point out that there were subjects on which he was infuriating.

…

Alex Pareene brings up his peculiar misogyny and his support for war.

…

He promoted jingoistic violence as the solution to everything in the Middle East.

…

Hitchens was a complicated fellow: talented and intelligent, and on some subjects he was warm and humane and a true child of the Enlightenment. And on others, a bloodthirsty barbarian and a club-carrying primitive. At least in his final months it was the civilized and thoughtful humanist who emerged most.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/16/the-dark-side-of-hitchens/

A commenter, ikesolem, said:

Hitchens may have been a rhetorical genius, but when it came to the Middle East he was woefully ignorant, and acted as a swiller and regurgitator of neocon propaganda (as did the U.S. corporate media establishment).

A person with a dark side. A misogynist, a promoter of violence, a bloodthirsty barbarian and club carrying primitive. Ignorant, a shill for the neocons.

What all this noise really means, when you consider the ilk of the people who are saying it, is that Hitchens disagreed with the left on some things. The horror.

It’s hard to disagree with the left. I’d much prefer to disagree with almost any other group as you would simply have an easier life. That’s the way it is I guess. The reason why it’s hard to oppose the left is that their primary imputed motive to you, as a person who has different views, is that you do so because you are bad or have a defective character.

Hitch was always Hitch. Even when he was dying. He was, at no point, ever close to being characterisable as either a “bloodthirsty barbarian” or a “club-carrying primitive”. Primitives do not use words and rationale like he did. That’s kind of what makes them primitives. This is language that is so tortured and over-the-top that it could almost be called mendaciousness.

Hitch was Hitch. Sometimes he had opinions that differed from you. Deal.

On being offended

ArgusEyes — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:22:09 GMT

Ah, takes me back to my youth.

ArgusEyes — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:40:36 GMT

Childhood classics.

It’s interesting how different we all are.

ArgusEyes — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:08:53 GMT

The BBC website served me this page, the reasons people immigrate are of interest to me because I seek to understand why other people make a life changing decision that I have also made.

Why we quit Australia for the UK is about people who had left the UK for Australia, and then moved back to the UK again. Interesting.

I stayed in Perth for 15 years after my parents emigrated there when I was seven. At 24, I came back to England and have been here ever since. The dullness and isolation of living somewhere like Perth can't be explained unless you experience it. There are so many reasons why England is preferable to Australia for a lot of people such as being able to buy groceries past 6pm, local shops and pubs, having Europe on your doorstep, comedy and culture. Even when I am stuck on the M25 it is preferable to driving on dull empty roads at mind numbingly low speeds. This will probably be perceived as "whinging pom" by any Aussies as they can't understand why anybody wouldn't want to be them but it simply isn't for everyone.

Amazing, an almost 180 degree turnaround from my own view.

I moved from Oxfordshire to Canberra with my husband in 1990 after our children had grown up. He had been offered a job there. We later lived in the bush for 13 years. It was a fascinating experience to live in a house we built, with only solar power and rainwater, in an unspoiled area where wild flowers and animals could be studied close up. We both loved it but our families were back in the UK. We were also retired and British state pensions are frozen if you retire in Australia. We returned in 2008 from our wonderful 100 acres of forest in New South Wales to a bungalow in Oxfordshire. No regrets.

Sorry, the last one was merely pedestrian. This one is amazing. A 100 acre forest paradise for a bungalow in Oxfordshire? I’m insulted you would pose such a question, the answer should be plain!? </sarcasm>

Actually, sarcasm aside, what these stories point out most forcefully is that there is simply no one standard for happiness that binds us all. It is not the duty of the state to bind us all under an inescapable single vision of what it thinks we need to do to be happy (Karl Marx anyone).

No, instead, given the freedom to move and to own ourselves and our futures, only we can make our lives fulfilling and purposeful; or, we may not, for freedom also gives us the opportunity to make our lives a miserable mess. The way we tie ourselves down with our decisions is show in the following stories.

After migrating to Australia in 1995, I moved my family back to the UK 18 months ago so my kids could know their grandparents. Now I feel obliged to stay, but am incredibly homesick for Queensland. Life was simple there. Here, it is harder and very consumption-oriented while people are more tense and noticeably less optimistic. There is also a wider social divide here. It's nice to see old friends and extended family but the sacrifices overall are not worth it. I wish I had the money to take my parents back to Australia. As it is, I am thankful that my Aussie-born kids will be able to return and that I will be able to retire there.

I know the pressure of having family back home. How much you let that family get in the way of your dream, is up to you. Children also tie you down. With kids, you can move less freely between work and homes.

Unfortunately work is the reason we are returning to the UK as we cannot earn enough to pay the mortgage. The cost of living here is scandalous and the wages don't reflect this. I am a fully qualified plumber and I came out here on the "demand list", however no one tells you that your qualifications do not mean anything here and that you have to return to college (and pay a fortune) to restudy your trade. When you are trying to get on your feet in a new country, you can't afford to start studying again because you can't get a job in the area you were accepted into the country for. Shame as we love the landscape. We have loved camping, four-wheel driving, beach visits and BBQs but with no money to pay the mortgage, you can't survive.

A mortgage ties you down. If you’re not confident in that you’re well instantiated in a new country then don’t get one. I am still renting because I’m not sure where I want to be yet.

They also have stories from people who went to Australia and decided to stay.

The world is an amazing place

ArgusEyes — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:38:14 GMT

National Geographic Photo Contest 2011

Please help support Wikipedia

ArgusEyes — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:36:23 GMT

I’m not the most altruistic person, but there is a cause that I regularly donate to. Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is one of those Utopian-sounding fantasies that could not possibly work, but does.

Whenever I’m trying to educate myself on a topic, which at the moment is a history of politics in New Zealand and the particulars of electoral systems – national elections and referendum today (Sat 26th Nov!) – Wikipedia will dominate on my browser tabs an an inevitable good source of well-written reliable information.

It has been criticised for its user-contributed nature. On this I say that there are some cases where Wikipedia has been proven to be quite reliable as compared to other encyclopedias. However, I will say that I think the proper onus is on people possessing adequate skeptical tools in their minds to include Wikipedia in a list of possible sources that they consult on issues, and not as some irrefutable and unquestionable source. No one thing you read should be accepted uncritically. You should always be questioning where, why and how.

Wikipedia could make a lot of money from advertising, even in a limited sense, but it does not do so. I respect this immensely and will be donating via their donations page.

https://donate.wikimedia.org/

The and and the grasshopper. NZ version

ArgusEyes — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:15:08 GMT

OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: Be responsible for yourself !

MODERN VERSION:The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his houseand laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come the winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. Media shows up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. The country is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Sue Bradford appears on Campbell Live with the grasshopper and everybody cries .. The Green Party stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome. Green Party Leader Metiriea Turei condemns the ant and blames John Key, Rob Muldoon, Roger Douglas, Capitalism and Global warming for the grasshopper's plight. John Minto exclaims in an interview with TV News that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally to gain votes to win an election, the Government drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to consider how his hard work and preparation has affected the Grasshoppers Mana and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated under the Government Land Repo Act and given to the grasshopper.The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government
confiscated house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't
maintain it. The ant has disappeared to Australia , never to be seen again.The grasshopper is found dead in a Drugs related incident, and the house,
now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of Homeboy spiders who terrorize the once prosperous and peaceful, neighbourhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2011

Do you want one good takedown of the neo Bolsheviks (occupiers)?

ArgusEyes — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:26:08 GMT

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Occupy Wall Street Divided

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

There, now can we start ignoring these people?

This species has amused itself to death

ArgusEyes — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:57:16 GMT

As I ponder the state of the world, two things has happened.

More and more, our species appears to me to be a ridiculous bunch of monkeys. A mold growing on a beautiful blue ball in space. Yes, we do great things but we spend more time flinging our feces at each other.
As a consequence of #1 I have really stopped giving a shit. Time spend away from TV and the news is time spend becoming happier. I think that I would like nothing more at this present time, than to save to buy a yacht and bob around on the sea laughing at the human disease.
The decline in videos and material I produce is, I think, related to this.

Maybe I’m getting more cynical.. Who’d knew eh?

As an interlude. Let us pay a testament to the artistic ability of our species some work by a true wordsmith, the ever talented Roger Waters, who seems to share some similar thoughts with me on matter.

Doctor Doctor what is wrong with me
This supermarket life is getting long
What is the heart life of a colour TV
What is the shelf life of a teenage queen
Ooh western woman
Ooh western girl
News hound sniffs the air
When Jessica Hahn goes down
He latches on to that symbol
Of detachment
Attracted by the peeling away of feeling
The celebrity of the abused shell the belle
Ooh western woman
Ooh western girl
And the children of Melrose
Strut their stuff
Is absolute zero cold enough
And out in the valley warm and clean
The little ones sit by their TV screens
No thoughts to think
No tears to cry
All sucked dry
Down to the very last breath
Bartender what is wrong with me
Why am I so out of breath
The captain said excuse me ma'am
This species has amused itself to death
Amused itself to death
Amused itself to death
We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
But then it was over
We ohhed and aahed
We drove our racing cars
We ate our last few jars of caviar
And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen-eyed look-out
Spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah
And when they found our shadows
Grouped around the TV sets
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data on their lists
And then the alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death
No tears to cry no feelings left
This species has amused itself to death

I’ve heard “fair share” more times than I can count. I’ve never heard what a “fair share” actually is.

ArgusEyes — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:33:12 GMT

So this disgusting group called “patriotic millionaires” (hey that’s a good one, it’s way better in the let’s-suck-our-own-dicks department than the “brights” movement was. Good on you, you wonderful people!), are descending on the government to implore the oligarchs to “please, please tax me more”. Which is one step up from from “please sir, may I have another”.

It’s not exactly a new point that the US treasury department accepts donations. I’ve heard it made by G.W, Bush himself in a speech, one of his rare zingers to be sure. However, if you want an actual reaction to that question from many of these people. Go here:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/patriotic-millionaires-demand-higher-taxes-but-unwilling-to-pay-up-video/#ooid=9qcG4wMzqAYp0d-USgHvosm1FKEyxk0t

Watch the video in that page. No embedding apparently.

So. It’s interesting isn’t it. I wonder what’s going on there on a psychological level.

The most interesting interview to my mind, is with the white-mustached gentleman at about a minute in. Here is a rough transcript:

Her: “You can donate to the government”

Him: “that is not going to help anybody:

Her: “so you don’t want to donate to the government”

Him: “I want our class to be… um…. You’ve heard me, you’re being silly”

By the way. When the fuck did Americans take up this stupid incessant class talk. I’m used to it of course, what with coming from Britain, but I thought the American classless society was truly above it all. Now, all I head is class based agitation from the left who are winning in the US. The neo Bolsheviks (that’s what I call the occupiers') on the streets of many US cities are a testament to the inculcation into education, of leftwing ways of thinking and viewing the world. [/rant]

Anyway, why. Why does it have to be tax? The cynic in me is screaming to says that it’s the perfect pitch. They get to look like angels and they will probably be able to weasel out of any tax raises with accountants and loopholes.

However, I’m not normally the one to go to the bad motives. I think that when people come out with political stances like this, they mean it. Let’s look at the quotes from the video. A general ideas is that donations won’t help anybody. It has to be on an entire class for it to be any good. This highlights the pernicious nature of taxation that irks me. We, the government, will spend and spend, we will prop up people who just don’t want to work, we will waste money with wanton abandon since it’s not ours. Then we need more, so we will take it from you. Open up your wallets and if you don’t then my armed friends can pay you a visit.

The attitude of “please please take my money by force'” really makes me hate these people. I think of gimps taking whippings it a stiletto heel to the ball-sack. The arrogance of a man saying “please tax me more” when the literal meaning of his statement is closer to “please impose, by fiat, higher taxation upon the class to which I belong”; and that’s supposed to be beautiful!? Please.

Quibbling over how the pie is divided does not create wealth. The greed and hate rampant in the US society at this current point in time will not create growth and prosperity. It can only lead to dark places.

Luckily, the occupy movement in New Zealand is small and pathetic, other countries are moving in better directions and will quite happily take the crown if they can do so.

I almost got killed today

ArgusEyes — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:37:11 GMT

*Sigh. Riding a motorcycle is fun. You constantly have to keep an eye on the cars in front of you, behind you, to the left and to the right, cars coming up and the cars that have passed. If you’re napping at the wrong time then you’re going to come off badly when one of them decides to kill you.

Today I almost got smeared as red paste along the southern motorway as a twat change lanes into me. Another twit in a four wheel drive vehicle (an unfailing sign of terrible driving skills here in NZ) trundled below the speed limit in the rightmost lane (that’s the fast lane to my American readers), and some cunt passing me the other way in a shitty hatchback bleated his horn at me for an extended period of time for no reason.

So in conclusion. People are shits. That is all.

There are too many of us pt2

ArgusEyes — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:22:34 GMT

How is that even supposed to be fun?

I know that some people say that there is a lot of wilderness out there for us to fill up. Do we want to end up like either of these two places? Packed together like battery hens? Do we want to completely dominate every single square mile of this planet with our taint? I say, leaving the planet in its natural splendour is a value in and of itself. I don't consider it our right to rape the planet and dominate every other species completely.

..That’s about how it works

ArgusEyes — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 03:58:58 GMT

Be careful what you ask for

ArgusEyes — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 01:09:46 GMT

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2413

Remind me to not piss Fred Reed off..

ArgusEyes — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:26:50 GMT

..He would savage me too much.

Like a wolverine digging at a rabbit's hole, this column seeks truth, wherever it lies. (Of course, if truth lies, how can you trust it? These are deep waters.) To this end, I have been reading feminists about what slugs men are, and bandits, and slaves of vanity, and cause loose fillings and sunspots and roach infestations. In the past I dismissed these tiresome viragos as mere creatures of bile and ill-breeding. This time, I thought, maybe I should listen to them. After all, ugly short-haired unmarried women are people too. Pretty close anyway.

AsI pondered, I was overcome by the consciousness of sin. Yes, I thought, it is true. We men are the slaves of vanity. I wanted to deny it, but I could not. The facts cannot be evaded: We, sorry male malfeasors all, are hopelessly vain.

Confess it, fellows: Men spend millions on boob jobs, on moisteurining lipstick that gives us the freshness of the roses of morn, on perky push-up bras that divide and lift at the same time. Yes, we do. Television groans under ads for new, new shampos that make our thinning hair swirl like corn silk in gentle zephyrs. Whole generations of Africans have died in the diamond mines of Kimberly so that we men could have gauds and baubles and dingly-dangles to put in our ears. Oh, the shame of it.

…

I have often read that women cooperate, quietly working together to get the job done, while men are aggressive and need to butt heads, trying to be the alpha male. This must be true, I reflected. Sociologists say so. There can be no greater fountain of truth than pigeon-chested academic worms in psuedo-universities. That's what I think, anyway.

Sure enough, the evidence is there. If you peer into the sordid sprawl of history, you find that you can hardly swing a pool cue without hitting a civilization founded by cooperating women. Sumeria, Rome, the Tang Dynasty, the Raj—all built by women working quietly and maturely together, while men fussed and fumed and did their nails. The NFL, the space program, Microsoft and Google, all products of cooperating women.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Confessions.shtml

That has to sting.

A pyromaniac in a field of straw men

ArgusEyes — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:18:44 GMT

The collectivist agenda is antithetical to America’s premise, which is: Government — including such public goods as roads, schools and police — is instituted to facilitate individual striving, a.k.a. the pursuit of happiness. The fact that collective choices facilitate this striving does not compel the conclusion that the collectivity (Warren’s “the rest of us”) is entitled to take as much as it pleases of the results of the striving.

…

Because such tutelary government must presume the public’s incompetence, it owes minimal deference to people’s preferences. These preferences are not really “theirs,” because the preferences derive from false, meaning imposed, consciousness. This convenient theory licenses the enlightened vanguard, the political class, to exercise maximum discretion in wielding the powers of the regulatory state.

Warren’s emphatic assertion of the unremarkable — that the individual depends on cooperative behaviors by others — misses this point: It is conservatism, not liberalism, that takes society seriously. Liberalism preaches confident social engineering by the regulatory state. Conservatism urges government humility in the face of society’s creative complexity.

Society — hundreds of millions of people making billions of decisions daily — is a marvel of spontaneous order among individuals in voluntary cooperation. Government facilitates this cooperation with roads, schools, police, etc. — and by getting out of its way. This is a sensible, dynamic, prosperous society’s “underlying social contract.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-and-liberalism-twisting-the-social-contract/2011/10/04/gIQAXi5VOL_story.html

Judgments at the speed of light

ArgusEyes — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:27:21 GMT

A week ago the world went wild over CERN's tentative claim that it could make neutrinos travel faster than light. Suddenly, intergalactic tourism and day trips to the real Jurassic Park were back on the menu, despite everything Einstein said. Now, however, a team of scientists at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands reckons it's come up with a more plausible (and disappointing) explanation of what happened: the GPS satellites used to measure the departure and arrival times of the racing neutrinos were themselves subject to Einsteinian effects, because they were in motion relative to the experiment. This relative motion wasn't properly taken into account, but it would have decreased the neutrinos' apparent journey time. The Dutch scientists calculated the error and came up with the 64 nanoseconds. Sound familiar? That's because it's almost exactly the margin by which CERN's neutrinos were supposed to have beaten light. So, it's Monday morning, Alpha Centauri and medieval jousting tournaments remain as out of reach as ever, and we just thought we'd let you know.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/17/remember-those-faster-than-light-neutrinos-great-now-forget-e/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/15/followup-ftl-neutrinos-explained-not-so-fast-folks/

That’s quite a good summary of the faster than light Neutrino kerfuffle as of the current time. When this breakthrough was making the rounds on the blogs, my reaction was a big “meh”. I was almost sure that it was all overblown, and now, that appears to have been the right attitude to take. Why?

Well, it’s part of a mentality and a belief system called skepticism. Instead of believing what I want to believe (or disbelieve). I will try to believe what has been proven, or has the most evidence behind it. My reaction to any claim is to ask “what evidence do you have to support that position?”. However, it’s more than that; it also comprises a set of mental tools that are used to evaluate claims and evidence. The reason I was instantly sceptical is that the theory of relativity that if true, it would overturn so much observed science that it would instantly qualify for increased scrutiny. Example:

If someone comes running to you and says “I just saw Johnny floating upwards!”. Would you reply “Holy shit – Newton was wrong! Call the press!”. No, because the principle of parsimony (if you hear hooves – think horses, not zebras) helps you see that such a claim stands opposite all the continual evidence from everyday that gravity is working in the same old way. The burden of the claim necessitates extreme skepticism to the thinking person. It is so great, that alternate explanations such as sky-hooks are more plausible without further inspection.

A sceptical view is painfully evident when you encounter someone with no skepticism whatsoever. Some people are credulous. They have no tools to differentiate between the veracity of claim A to claim B. I think we all will have met people like this in our day-to-day lives. A recent example of this, at least as it pertains to the faster than light neutrino news story, is Charles Krauthammer. Some of you will know that I respect him very much, but a recent piece called “Gone in 60 nanoseconds”.

The world as we know it is on the brink of disintegration, on the verge of dissolution. No, I’m not talking about the collapse of the euro, of international finance, of the Western economies, of the democratic future, of the unipolar moment, of the American dream, of French banks, of Greece as a going concern, of Europe as an idea, of Pax Americana — the sinews of a postwar world that feels today to be unraveling.

I am talking about something far more important. Which is why it made only the back pages of your newspaper, if it made it at all. Scientists at CERN, the European high-energy physics consortium, have announced the discovery of a particle that can travel faster than light.

...

The implications of such a discovery are so mind-boggling, however, that these same scientists immediately requested that other labs around the world try to replicate the experiment. Something must have been wrong — some faulty measurement, some overlooked contaminant — to account for a result that, if we know anything about the universe, is impossible.

And that’s the problem. It has to be impossible because, if not, if that did happen on this Orient Express hurtling between Switzerland and Italy, then everything we know about the universe is wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gone-in-60-nanoseconds/2011/10/06/gIQAf1RERL_story.html

Here, Krauhammer accuses scientists of giving into emotion and not wanting to admit it is true. This is nonsense! Science, has continually overthrown what we have previously cherished as being “right” – it’s what science does. From quantum physics to the germ theory of disease, science is introducing new ways of viewing the world into the human mind. However, it does this through evidence.

Brian Cox, a professor of particle physics at the University of Manchester, urged caution. "If you've got something travelling faster than light, then it's the most profound discovery of the last 100 years or more in physics. It's a very, very big deal," he said on BBC 6 Music on Friday. "It requires a complete rewriting of our understanding of the universe."

Professor Jim Al-Khalili at the University of Surrey said it was most likely that something was skewing the results. "If the neutrinos have broken the speed of light, it would overturn a keystone theory from the last century of physics. That's possible, but it's far more likely that there is an error in the data. So let me put my money where my mouth is: if the Cern experiment proves to be correct and neutrinos have broken the speed of light, I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/23/physicists-speed-light-violated

There is an important point here, and that is that the scientists and skeptics had the proper attitude, in that it produced the correct interpretation and prediction of reality. An incident occurred, and the tools that are in our heads directed us to the truth whilst others wallowed in emotional acceptance of something they wanted to believe (like Krauthammer does here) the reasons they do this are unsure and may differ from person to person, it is interesting to see that Krauthammer accuses others of denying based on emotion when he is the one accepting on emotion. Projection Charles?

Why? It probably ahs some relation to the right’s dismissal of science and approbation of ‘elites’. I hope this is not the case as that is not something I’d normally attribute to Krauthammer. On the other hand – it may be everyday excitement that there are possibilities out there that boggle the mind.

Skeptical thinking and science are tools that slowly guide us to the light, bit-by-bit. I’m still open to the facts but the case seems closed on this one.

P.Z. Myers: Annoyed at society

ArgusEyes — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:04:28 GMT

P.Z. Myers is annoyed at society.

here's nothing wrong about being pretty, or sexy, or shopping, or being interested in traditionally girly things—but there is a big problem when that's the only option you're given.

It’s true. At a young age, girls are visited by the thought police and subtly told that tomboyish behaviour is punishable by room 101.

I know I'd be stressed if I were constantly told I'm less of a man if I'm not playing football or working in a manly occupation that involved large wrenches and heavy industrial tools, so I can sympathize with the limited choices given women:

I think I used to be the kind to sound like a male version of a feminist and complain about the pressures put on men by society. Now I realise that life is what you make of it (clichéd though that may sound) and that people who make a fuss if you don’t watch sports or watch chick flicks or whatever, are insecure individuals with whom you should probably not associate.

oh, you aren't wearing a bikini on your lithe body with the large breasts? Then you're an ugly dyke. You aren't planning a career as a homemaker and mother? You just want to be a man.

I hear this all the time. </sarcasm>

P.Z. Myers does not reside in reality.

He then goes on to talk about a pink clothes and boys obsessed video game aimed at girls. It looks horrible. Don’t play it if you want to. You know, I don’t get what people like him are actually asking for.. The banning of games such as this. A skewing of the media towards a certain portrayal of women? Substance is normally not provided.

He then links to this video.

To sum up my feelings. I left this comment on the video.

Life is what we make of it. I implore all people who want to live differently from the other sheep in this world to persist in it and ignore others, if it works for you then that’s all that matters.

Life will not be fair to us and we will not get everything handed to us on a silver platter. Please reject the tempting carrot of victimist movements like the ones portrayed in this trailer who are promising to change society for you – don’t YOU worry about changing your life. Only you can do it.

It's a small world

ArgusEyes — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:07:16 GMT

Nikon Small World Photomicrography Competition.

There are too many of us

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:42:47 GMT

The center for biological diversity in the US has a campaign called “7 billion and counting”.

Our planet’s nearing a milestone: By the end of October, there will be a staggering 7 billion people eking out a living here. By the end of the century, it’ll top 10 billion.

Overpopulation and overconsumption are the root causes of environmental destruction. They’re driving species extinct, destroying wildlife habitat, and undermining the basic needs of all life at an unprecedented rate. It has to stop.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/7_billion_and_counting/index.html

Now, this is going to put me in the same camp as many environmentalist nuts; but I wholeheartedly agree. They’ve also got these endangered species condoms:

Through a network of volunteers, the Center for Biological Diversity is giving away 100,000 free Endangered Species Condoms in 2011 as part of our 7 Billion and Counting campaign.
The condoms are an engaging, lively way to get people talking about the unsustainable growth of the human population (it’s expected to hit 7 billion by the end of October 2011) and the effect it’s having on the extinction of species around the globe.

http://www.endangeredspeciescondoms.com/

Cute.

Now, all you need to do is go on wildlife tours in almost any location and you can hear and see the effect of man on the environment. This mostly comes from our takeover of the land to farm for our vast numbers. We also play games with the environment, we introduce species into countries like New Zealand, which decimate the ground nesting bird populations and then we say “oops” and try to right it again.

Yes, we do take care of our environments, we protect species and try to foster their growth, but I’m not sure how these good notions of our character can win out against the cold hard reality of food for the people of the world and the effects of all those humans will have on the environment.

We’re bursting at the seams. New technology may allow for more of us to be able to exist but really, seriously, how many people do we want? Seven billion? Ten billion? More? Who amongst us want more people on this planet? I know I don’t.

Maybe I’m just being selfish. I’m a misanthrope and I would want less people for that reason alone. However, I find nature to be so beautiful and I find people to be so ugly. I think this planet has enough of us already, think of how we could have more peace, untrammeled wilderness, food and space for everyone if we can take it easy with the fucking for a bit.

Nature vs. Nurture and Un-skeptical Skeptics

ArgusEyes — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:07:25 GMT

Ever wanted to hear a so called “skeptic” turn into a yammering true believer, completely abandoning their rationality to defend some dogmatic belief that they may happen to hold to a faith based degree?

Enter Rebecca Watson again.

In the latest episode of the “Skeptics Guide to the Universe”, at the 39 minute mark, Rebecca runs readily into prosthelytization. She lays down an outright bold-faced assertion that we assert boys to be aggressive and that we “socialise boys to play” don’t you know.

Then, all the other guys on the show jump on her for these remarks. Lacking a victimist belief system, they are more prone to see reality as it is. She, however, cannot see how she holds to a dogmatic belief and probably thought she was on safe ground. She was wrong. She also has no children and the other guys on the show do (so I believe).

They took her to task and she gets more histrionic and foolish as the argument goes on. Faced with the evidence, she retreats to try and say that she was simply saying that not “all” men or women are like this. This is a classic sign. When someone takes an extreme position, which is exactly what she did at the beginning when she said that boys are socialised to aggressiveness, then when pounded on this position by sound arguments, they retreat to simply state that they weren’t talking about all men, ever. Well duh, most of the time we don’t mean “all”. Generalisations are one of the most important tools in having a wise view of the world, a generalisation such as “men are more aggressive than women” is true and fair, if you’re sabotaging yourself (using PC and cognitive dissonance) against holding such a view, indeed, being aggressively reactant to it, then you’re not going to understand the realities of the world; such as war, gangs, the workplace, etc.

Boys are socialised to aggressiveness? Hasn’t she ever heard of testosterone.

Later in the discussion Steve Novella makes a joke on how we can test of boys are the same as girls. He says:

“so we should be able to take male babies and cut off their penises and then see how they turn out when they get older”

Enter David Reimer. David was a boy whose penis was badly damaged in a botched circumcision. His parents were convinced by Dr. John Money to cut off the penis, construct a vagina, and raise David as a girl. The experiment failed, horribly.

Scientifically, I think the extreme nurturist position is dead. Watson brazenly waltzes into situations like this because she thinks that she has a tool (skepticism) that enables her to find truth. One of the most arrogant people I know is also one of the rare ones who calls himself a “skeptic”. When you think you’re unimpeachable, then you’re not likely to find your own flaws. Skepticism allows one to grope in the dark to the truth more successfully than you’ll be able to do alone, but it doesn’t produce truth.

Now, the standard assumption on behalf of people who hate me is that I must, in arguing about this, support an extremist nature view. No. In fact, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve moved more and more to believing in the importance of nurture. When you look at how societies can differ, how attitudes like Bushido and Kamikaze can exist in Japanese culture but not in others, it is clear to see that culture is huge in like. However, nature sets up behaviours that we can see in all cultures. Behaviours such as aggressiveness, the maternal spirit, bell shaped curves of intelligence and achievement.

Left wing science denial

ArgusEyes — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:30:04 GMT

A piece of anti-evolution inanity pt1

ArgusEyes — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:04:31 GMT

One-two punch. Really quick and precise.

First up in the retard corner. Bryan Fischer:

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147511115

As J.B.S. Haldane famously observed, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

If computational processes are determined wholly by the motion of electrons in circuits, then I have no reason to suppose that it could ever solve a sum and hence I have no reason for supposing the computer to be composed of electrons in circuits.

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.

What this means, then, is that science simply has no explanation for the most basic question that could possibly be asked: why is there something rather than nothing?

Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have an answer to this question; evolutionists do not.

Theism in a nutshell. “You don’t know, therefore God”. If course, that’s not an answer. That was the same answer to “where did disease come from”, “where did lightning come from”, “how does the sun move across the sky”. It was wrong then. How much do we want to bet on it being wrong this time? To state that “we don’t know” means “we know” is a logical impossibility.

Also, the premises are unsound. Take what we thought we “knew” about science a hundred years ago. People were actually reticent to go into the field of physics since they thought that we knew everything we needed to know, only technology was getting in the way of us progressing. That was before quantum physics came to the fore. Oh! How ignorant we are at all stages of our humanity!

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.

This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.

But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a scientific theory against my scientific law, I'm going to settle for the law every time, thank you very much.

My, aren’t we smarmy! A commenter made a really good comment here.

“Obviously in individual systems order can increase - have you ever made a bed? Congratulations, you added order to a system but did not violate the laws of physics.”

If babies can grow up, become adults, give birth to other babies, which will do the same. Then your point is full of it.

Fossils. Realize that the fossil record is the only tangible, physical evidence for the theory of evolution that exists. The fossil record is it. There is absolutely nothing else Darwinians have they can show you.

As Yale University's Carl Dunbar says, "Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."

But if Darwin's theory is correct, that increasingly complex life forms developed in tiny little incremental and transitional steps, then the fossil record should by littered with an enormous number of transitional fossils.

Darwin himself said, "The number of intermediate and transitional links must have been inconceivably great."

But, sadly for Darwinians, after 150 years of digging in dirt all around the world, there are still no transitional fossils at all, not one!

I’m going to stop him there since that last line is complete bull.

Oh, but they’re not transitional because you don’t think they are. Hey, there has never been a sane Christian since I define all Christians as definitionally insane. Ha! I win!

Also, forget fossils. Really. We don’t need em’! The evidence from genetics is more than enough to back evolution as being true…

Genes. The only mechanism — don't miss this — the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation. Mutations alter DNA, and these alterations can be passed on to descendants.

Oh for fucks sake.

The problem: naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism. Rather than improve an organism's capacity to survive, they invariably weaken it. That's why the phrase we most often use to refer to genetic mutations is "birth defects."

If scientists are some day able to engineer beneficial genetic mutations in the lab, that will simply prove our point: we told you it takes intelligence and design.

Now tell me, what happens to an organism whose ability to survive is diminished? It’s hardly likely to foster a successful line of children is it? If good mutations are filtered (necessarily) then I don’t care if only 1% of mutations are good. Over time, they are more likely to be ‘picked’ by natural selection.

Forget about “engineering” beneficial mutations in the lab. They’ve just left bacteria to its own devices and watched it:

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.

Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Evolution in this sense is a fact of nature. It happens. Get over it.

RE: A short quiz on Intelligent Design for both advocates and opponents of ID

ArgusEyes — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:30:43 GMT

I’ll bite: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-short-quiz-on-intelligent-design-for-both-advocates-and-opponents-of-id/

1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.)

Update: When I say “certain features”, I mean, “certain generic features of the universe-as-a-whole (e.g. constants of Nature) and of living things in general (e.g. the specified complexity of DNA”. When I say “an undirected process” I mean a process lacking long-range foresight.

2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design?

First off. Get over yourself atheists. I’ve read a lot of people saying things like “non – haha”. ID is a stance. It has a set of arguments. Many people find those arguments persuasive. By necessity, some of those arguments will be more logically sound than the others. Pick the best one. Jesus..

I’d say the fine tuning argument is the best argument that ID proponents have on their side. I made a video once where I said that complexity made it hard to believe in evolution. I guess, that being more foolish made be think that a while ago but I don’t think that anymore.

3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design?

The argument from history & human nature. When we don’t understand things, we ascribe it to magic. The problem is, that we’re always wrong. We were wrong about Ra. We were wrong about the scarab beetle. We are wrong about lightning coming from God, disease as divine punishment. When we don’t know something we don’t know it. To say that to not know where something came from is to know where it came from. That is a logical contradiction.

4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?

ID proponents must do more than simply trying to bamboozle everyone with complexity. Evolution necessarily explains complexity otherwise it’d be useless so that is simply not enough. Also, enough with the design analogies. Yes, a computer is designed but we could not be.

5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?

By putting more emphasis on the problems I highlighted above. However, those are flaws I find in ID. Other people obviously think differently.

6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.)

(b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.)

Something like solipsism maybe; or variants of it. I don’t really concern myself with such things. I’m only interested in reality.

Woe to the world when people call good evil and evil good

ArgusEyes — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 16:58:19 GMT

True to my standard form, I only comment after the hubbub has died down.

Why did the London riots occur? Bad people. People who have been groomed by the welfare society to be worse then they would otherwise be. People who simmer in hatred in underclass, who live by an us vs. them mentality. Then, there are the opportunists with no morality and the bored youth. They see no limitation to taking the opportunity to jump on the looting bandwagon and after all, what is life except the pursuit of the next “laugh”?

However, worse than the riots are the people who made them happen. Call them what you want. Leftists, liberals, pinko’s, commies.. I like to know them as the supporters of evil.

To look at people breaking into stores, perpetrating acts of barbarity, and to not blame those barbarians but to say that the problem is us, the problem is society or the “rich”. Well, all I can say is that I am acting very hard to control my anger over the moral repugnancy of that idea.

If you want a good example of this kind of thinking. Then check out this big picture gallery:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/08/london_riots_update.html

A selection of comments from the bottom of the page:

Chul Park · Seoul, Korea
Looters are scum.

                Vance Feld · Portland, Oregon
                companies that evade paying taxes are scum.

                Pavel Verner · Masaryk University
                That doesn't justify violence and looting. You don't have right to steal, that's not "taking the justice in your own hands".

                Flor Tercero
                Nothing justifies violence, but poor people in the UK are being under violence by their government and the police for a very long time. Violence, any kind of violence, brings violence. The answer is to get to the root of the problem and share the outrageous wealth of very seldom ones to the big majority that suffers from the neoliberal dogma that is bringing us all down.
42 · · Reply · Wednesday at 12:48am

…

Natalie Bonanno
This is the result of a broken system. When peaceful protest won't get you results, won't even get you media coverage, this is what you get. A riot is the language of the unheard.

                Bogusz Topolnicki
                I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter rubbish. I have yet to hear a single demand, or actually see any political agenda coming from those people. As it has been said already they are just a group of opportunists taking advantage of the situation. Please, don't speak on the matter you know nothing about.

                Natalie Bonanno
                I'm sure there are some opportunists, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there just looting and burning things down for fun and because they think they can get away with it. But not everyone out there is like that. Stop treating these people like scum, if anything, they're heroes. They're standing up to a government that is out of touch with the people they're governing. Politicians are out on vacation in Italy and meanwhile these kids can't find a job, they can't get a decent education, they can't pay for a house of their own. Two months ago over 2000 black youths peacefully marched to Scotland Yard, but you didn't see any coverage on that. The people are frustrated, and have every right to be.

…

slsturgi (signed in using Yahoo)
Your use of "youth" is incorrect. Stop it. Use correct terms in your descriptions. I'd suggest "men" or "young men" if you must remain polite.

                azerfvbn (signed in using Yahoo)
                Also, "stupid men" or stealer", simply :D

This part deserves special emphasis:

But not everyone out there is like that. Stop treating these people like scum, if anything, they're heroes. They're standing up to a government that is out of touch with the people they're governing.

That is something so stupid, that you can only be brainwashed by college to believe it. It’s fascinating how a belief system can turn the thuggish barbarians.. Into heroes.

Theodore Dalrymple’s comments, as always, are worthwhile on this topic:

The ferocious criminality exhibited by an uncomfortably large section of the English population during the current riots has not surprised me in the least. I have been writing about it, in its slightly less acute manifestations, for the past 20 years. To have spotted it required no great perspicacity on my part; rather, it took a peculiar cowardly blindness, one regularly displayed by the British intelligentsia and political class, not to see it and not to realize its significance. There is nothing that an intellectual less likes to change than his mind, or a politician his policy.

Three men were run over and killed as they tried to protect their property in the very area of Birmingham in which I used to work, and through which I walked daily; the large town that I live near when I’m in England has also seen rioting. Only someone who never looked around him and never drew any conclusions from the faces and manner of the young men he saw would have been surprised.

The riots are the apotheosis of the welfare state and popular culture in their British form. A population thinks (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class) that it is entitled to a high standard of consumption, irrespective of its personal efforts; and therefore it regards the fact that it does not receive that high standard, by comparison with the rest of society, as a sign of injustice. It believes itself deprived (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class), even though each member of it has received an education costing $80,000, toward which neither he nor—quite likely—any member of his family has made much of a contribution; indeed, he may well have lived his entire life at others’ expense, such that every mouthful of food he has ever eaten, every shirt he has ever worn, every television he has ever watched, has been provided by others. Even if he were to recognize this, he would not be grateful, for dependency does not promote gratitude. On the contrary, he would simply feel that the subventions were not sufficient to allow him to live as he would have liked.

…

The culture of the person in this situation is not such as to elevate his behavior. One in which the late Amy Winehouse—the vulgar, semicriminal drug addict and alcoholic singer of songs whose lyrics effectively celebrated the most degenerate kind of life imaginable—could be raised to the status of heroine is not one that is likely to protect against bad behavior.

Finally, long experience of impunity has taught the rioters that they have nothing to fear from the law, which in England has become almost comically lax—except, that is, for the victims of crime. For the rioters, crime has become the default setting of their behavior; the surprising thing about the riots is not that they have occurred, but that they did not occur sooner and did not become chronic.

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0810td.html

Eve Ensler is fucking insane

ArgusEyes — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:01:40 GMT

I don’t expect you to make it through this entire video. Luckily, you only need two minutes (that is how long I was able to hold out) to realise that Eve Ensler is a fucking loon. I’m not going to transcribe it but, like I said, you only need two minutes.

There are a couple of points to be made here. The first, and most important is that feminism and other petered-out activist/victimist movements, attract very damaged people. These are not healthy, well-adjusted people and they have clearly turned their angst outwards to a large degree. Their theories affect other damaged people, but they also rub off on impressionable women and men who think that because they are a college professor or a talker, that they have wisdom on the world.

Second point is; a bit effect of feminism is to turn women into weak, pathetic losers. Think back to all the shrieking and over-the-top language about feelings and un-comfortableness and privilege at the Rebecca Watson elevator affair. Some guy asks her out in an elevator and the community throws itself into a fit. How about you say “no” and leave it at that? This navel-gazing waffling loon is speaking at an event called TEDWomen. If I were invited to TEDMen then I’d feel embarrassed at myself and I would decline to appear. Aren’t they embarrassed?! Really, I don’t get it. TED is for men and women who have something interesting to say. TEDWomen is like a special-ed class for women who want to rant incoherently about things that no one else cares about. If you’re on the short bus then you’ve fucked up in life.

If you read the comments on the video page, most are against. Sense might yet prevail.

If they’re anything like Rebecca Watson, then do we actually want more women in the atheist/skeptic movement?

ArgusEyes — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:19:30 GMT

Since I last commented, I’ve heard many podcasts and read many articles on the wretched Rebecca Watson affair. Not because I sought them, but because they are brought up at the places I regularly visit. I have commented before, but I feel a sort of last word is required since I’ve not heard many people go over what really pisses me off about this whole thing.

It’s about this whole idea of privilege. The idea being peddled is that we men have such a sense of privilege and chutzpah that we brazenly go where we please propositioning women left and right?

Guys. Do you feel ‘privileged’ to be the pursuers, do you feel ‘empowered’ when approaching a woman at a club or bar? Are these women weak and diminutive? Or are they fully aware of the power behind their own positions? In my experience, it’s normally the latter.

In fact, being able to sit on your arse and be propositioned by guys and be offered drinks. That sounds like a privileged position to me! If I’d exchange my ‘privilege’ for their ‘oppression’ on any day of the week then guess what? It isn’t privilege!

Men and women are different. We ask the women out, because we want to get laid. Sorry. Is this debatable? (And no, I’m not saying that women never ask men out for fucks sake). If the world changed tomorrow, and guys stopped asking women out, then women would probably be the first ones to complain.

Take the ardent atheist podcast episode that dealt with this. The gay host has a female co-host and he fills the panel with three women! So one gay guy and four women discuss this issue. Are you serious! I’ll give you one chance to try and guess which perspective is missing here. This brings a side issue to the fore, the intrusion of politically correct victim groups into a movement which is ostensibly about facts and science. Take this comment:

(2) There are also women out there who do not believe this is an issue because they haven’t personally experienced it, or have experienced things they feel are far worse. Please do not diminish the experiences and emotions of your sisters in skepticism. Remain open to the possibility that you, too, might be unconsciously influenced by cultural baggage.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

Feelings and emotions have no place in scepticism. Skepticism is about facts, not your petty personality problems. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Feminism makes women weak and pathetic. Look at how the goalposts have moved. From sensible arguments about legitimate differences to these Orwellian phrases about “cultural baggage”. It’s all an excuse to continue feeling aggrieved and a victim in societies which, generally speaking, excellent in their treatment of females.

Feminism & PC is not going away, it's getting shriller and it’s growing like mould in a movement that is not ostensibly about it. A lot of people didn’t come here for this.

JREF president DJ Grothe did just that when, a few days before TAM9, he openly addressed the rift caused by “Elevatorgate” and made it clear that unwanted sexual advances or other harassing behavior were unacceptable, and grounds for being ejected from the conference. Grothe also deserves credit for making diversity a priority in his selection of speakers and topic. That’s the mark of a true leader, and the JREF is lucky to have him. Kudos, also, to Big Name skeptics like Phil Plait, PZ Myers, Josh Rosenau, Greg Laden and others who spoke up eloquently in support of Watson.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

How do you know it’s unwanted until you try? Then you’re already fucked (as we know from elevator dude). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You are a Neanderthal for being a normal, healthy male. Submit to the thought collective and let them mould you like putty.

A lot of people don’t particularly like the victim mongers and their cringing, hand-wringing supporters (most of the leaders in the movement support the Watson view by the way, the kerfuffle comes from those who are in the movement but are not in positions of power – the rot will continue). A lot of people think that Watson’s comments were going too far in criticizing someone coming on to her, they don’t live in bubbles of PC, they’re out there in real life where they have to ask chicks out.

My recommendation. Become a monk. Live on a mountaintop, and laugh at the ridiculous monkeys scurrying around below you with their stupid, petty little gripes and lives.

This is why I don’t make videos anymore

ArgusEyes — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 01:17:43 GMT

So some guy murders some people, each person aligned with a group mentality falls over himself or herself to spill their psychology onto printed or digital page, to explain all of us how it was that group over there, there, they’re the ones to blame. Them. Not me. Them!

The feminists can pin it all on men. The leftist can pin it on his right wing views. Atheists can pin it on his religion. Some creationists have started to discover that he’s actually a social Darwinist! Lordy, that amount of justification surely must have burnt some brain cells.

I would call him a person of impaired ethics and character, but that’s just me.

I used to be angered by this vaudeville, not I’m mostly tired, and a little amused. Make a drink and join me on a beach somewhere as I watch society collectively fuck itself. I guess, the latter attitude is less conducive to the production of outraged videos than the former, so who knows if I’ll ever care enough to scrape the effort required to excrete another video anytime soon. People don’t change, and to rant about it seems to me, to have the metaphorical equivalent of gobbing into a moving river.

Methinks he is like a weasel

ArgusEyes — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:36:14 GMT

The ability of creationists to fall over themselves to demonstrate pugnaciousness at an elegant analogy for evolution is never better demonstrated than in the case of Dawkin’s weasel example. You can watch this YouTube video from his excellent blind watchmaker documentary to get an idea of what the weasel program is (at about six minutes in).

Now, if you were a creationist who is intent upon being awkward, then you could make these criticisms perhaps:

Yet I believe that Dawkins and his defenders misunderstand the weasel program. The weasel model argues strongly for the inference to teleology/design, not for undirected evolution.

My reasons:

1) Dawkins inadvertently and inescapably uses a model of design. The computer itself, the program, the endpoint are all designed by minds. Even the random letter generator is a meticulously designed program. But the essence of Darwin's theory is that there is no goal-directedness, no design, in evolution. So why would Dawkins use a model that is entirely designed? The reason is obvious: he has no choice. Design permeates nature.

2) The teleology in Darkins' weasel program is particularly in the target. The teleology permeates the system, but the crucial teleology is the adaptation- the match between the 'random' process and the environment.

http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/07/thoughts-on-dawkins-weasel-program.html

Yes, this is from Egnor’s new blog, and he goes for that low-hanging fruit. The fact that a computer is, bum bum buuuuum… Designed! Surely not!

Yes a computer is a creation of man it is also a calculating machine and can thus be used to simulate things. Let’s look at a simple example. Take a natural process such as the formation of crystals, or the falling of an object due to gravity. If you’re the type of theist who thinks that got is directly doing all of these things then go away – because I can’t convince you of anything. However, if you think that there are natural laws in the universe then the fact that we can write simulations of these processes on a computer does not tell us anything about the processes other than we can simulate them. A computer is designed. This does not mean that we are “using a model of design” when we write a program on it. That is foolishness. A designed nature of a computer does not influence the programs running on it, which can be self-contained universes if we wish to make them so.

I am a software developer, and I have written my own weasel program. It’s a nice exercise but if I wanted to, I could create a proper evolutionary algorithm which would not be targeted towards anything. It would probably have a fitness measurement, but we could leave it to run in perpetuity to create all sorts of creatures in the memory of the machine. Egnor is being purposefully pompous in his questioning tone above. Does he not get the simple demonstrative nature of the weasel program? Open you ears and learn something for once Egnor.

Female salon owner beats up robber, ties him up, rapes him

ArgusEyes — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:05:53 GMT

The rape of males is mainly a prison affair, it’s very rare to see an instance of a female raping a male in the world, normally drugs and restraints need to be used.

Robber who broke into hair salon is beaten by its black-belt owner and kept as a sex slave for three days... fed only Viagra

A Russian man who tried to rob a hair salon ended up as the victim when the female shop owner overpowered him, tied him up naked and then used him as a sex slave for three days.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013870/Robber-broke-hair-salon-beaten-black-belt-owner-kept-sex-slave-days--fed-Viagra.html

Bloody hell!

Viktor Jasinski, 32, admitted to police that he had gone to the salon in Meshchovsk, Russia, with the intention of robbing it.

But the tables were turned dramatically when he found himself overcome by owner Olga Zajac, 28, who happened to be a black belt in karate.

She allegedly floored the would-be robber with a single kick.

Good, I love it when people fight back against criminal scum.

Then, in a scene reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, police say Zajac dragged the semi-conscious Jasinski to a back room of the salon and tied him up with a hair dryer cable.

She allegedly stripped him naked and, for the next three days, used him as a sex slave to 'teach him a lesson' - force feeding him Viagra to keep the lesson going.

That’s not the best way to handle the situation you know. Also, it’s called rape daily mail. A textual search for “rape” will garner no word hits in this article.

Jasinski went straight to the police and told them of his back-room ordeal, saying that he had been held hostage, handcuffed naked to a radiator, and fed nothing but Viagra.

Both have now been arrested.

That’s correct. At least two crimes have been committed here. The attempted robbery and the rape (probably can be extended to be more than one crime – kidnapping, restraining someone, drugging them, etc). Both should go to prison for this.

When police arrived to question Zahjac, she said: 'What a bastard. Yes, we had sex a couple of times. But I bought him new jeans, gave him food and even gave him 1,000 roubles when he left."

What!? Okay, that sounds weird. Also, this is the daily mail here so don’t take it as gospel. They, of course, bring up pulp fiction but the jovial nature of the article wouldn’t be the same if the sexes were reversed, but I think I would feel differently myself about it if the sexes were reversed. I just don’t find myself feeling as much sympathy for this guy then a women who is forced down by an overpowering male and brutally raped. Which is, unfortunately, far more common than this.

Liberty askew

ArgusEyes — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:59:12 GMT

I spend a lot of time ripping into the left on this blog and in my videos. Many assume that makes me some sort of right winger. Well, not quite. By the original meanings of the terms “right” and “left”, colour me a lefty any day. However, the problem with those terms is they are so monumentally vague, that saying you’re on the left, whilst being statistically presumptive, is not enough to know the entirety of what a person things about any one issue.

I read all sites of the spectrum. I listen to podcasts, and read blogs, that come from all sorts of angles. Conservative talk radio, Right-leaning conservative, hard leftist, left leaning, atheist, skeptic, creationist, religious. From what I’ve experienced with many people, this is a rare thing indeed. Many blogs are echo chambers for one side of view and I hope I don’t do that here, one such blog is “Dispatches from the culture wars”, Ed Brayton’s blog. That said, he criticise democrats from time to time but it’s mostly a conservative bashing blog.

Either way, Brayton makes an excellent point that I’ve frequently felt myself:

Michele Bachmann was the first Republican candidate to sign a pledge by the Family Leader, an Iowa wingnut group.

by signing the pledge Bachmann "vows" to "uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman" by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of "all forms" of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk.

See, it's all about smaller government. Small enough to fit a camera in your bedroom to make sure you aren't looking at unapproved pictures or having sex in anything other than the missionary position with a member of the opposite sex. In Bachmann's delusions, aking a census destroys liberty; throwing gays in jail and banning books doesn't.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/07/bachmanns_version_of_smaller_g.php

I’ve frequently felt that when American Republicans go on about liberty so much, they mean only a very specific version of liberty. Sure, they want the liberty to earn money and be taxed less but they don’t value liberty as a principle. Not really. How about the liberty to grow and smoke a reasonably innocuous plant in the safety of your own home? Never! Both republicans and democrats are united in the tyranny of controlling what we do with our own bodies.

The Michele Bachmann situation quoted above is informative too. If it offends their religious sensibilities then they'll find rationalisations to explain why our liberty to interact as adults must be compromised. Remember. They don’t believe in liberty, they believe in liberty for certain things they want. Republicans want liberty from tax, democrats want liberty from worldly wants.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

ArgusEyes — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:55:34 GMT

Image Of Virgin Mary Appears In Bird Dropping On Area Family’s Truck

An image of the Virgin Mary that appeared in a bird dropping on the side mirror of a Central Texas family’s truck is causing a neighborhood stir.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/50946582.html

I love the statement “Image Of Virgin Mary Appears In Bird Dropping”. Yes folks, it’s a fact. This is the virgin Mary, not some indiscriminate smear in some avian fecal matter. That’s A-grade reporting right there. I’m going to give some important life lessons for the reporter, Shannon Dillon.

This is an image of the virgin Mary.

This is birdshit.

Clear?

From the article:

"We just all feel protected. It's a blessing to our family and to everybody that comes to see it," says Cristal Pachuca.

So because it feels good to believe it, then that means it’s true. Can someone get me out of this human race please? I think I will make a good squirrel.

Someone put a good comment at the end

Pareidolia: a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant

Fred Reed: Sexual futures

ArgusEyes — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:23:05 GMT

I love a lot of what Fred Reed writes, not everything mind, but his words on male female relations are some of the most to-the-point words you can read on the topic.

“All of the world's problems are products of the male ego,” said a swaggering bulldagger she-cop in Law and Order the other night. Average gringa. Actually, only some of the world's problems, as for example wars, are products of the male ego.

Of course, a curmudgeonly male—though I don't know any of these—might respond, “Woman, everything that keeps you and your sisters from squatting in caves and crushing lice is a product of the male brain.”

Which is true.

It is curious: Women seem to have no idea how profoundly they depend on men, and not just to fix thingy-whiches that make cars go. The pattern is that men invent and women use. Men invented cars, and women learned to drive them, usually without having the foggiest idea of how they work. Men also invented refrigerators, television, aircraft, hair-dryers, and tampons. Since women with few exceptions do not think technically unless they have to, they are unaware of the inordinate amount of inspired brainwork that led over millenia to computational fluid dynamics, band theory, the double helix, and TCP/IP.

We hear much triumphalism from women these days about the “male malaise,” the poor performance of boys in class, their depression and inattention in school, their declining presence in the universities. Why are these thing happening?

It is not that girls are doing better. They have always been dutiful, have pasted pictures neatly into projects, and have done their homework on time. Rather the boys have gone downhill. Why?

…

http://www.fredoneverything.net/SexualFuture.shtml

Shockwaves strike the skeptic community as an act of such untrammeled sexism shakes out very foundations

ArgusEyes — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:12:08 GMT

PZ says:

here is an odd attitude in our culture that it's acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php

He’s incited people to “always name names”. Other’s have chimed in too. PZ’s followed up with “The Decent Human Beings' Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences”.

At Furious Purpose:

Sometimes I feel ashamed to have a dingdong, seriously.

http://furiouspurpose.me/2011/06/21/rebecca-watson-has-a-new-video/

Wow, that’s pretty harsh rhetoric. “Decent human being” indeed. Whatever did happen to Rebecca Watson to incite such flapping?

Well, she left a party at 4am in some atheist/skeptic conference and a guy got on with her and said.

Don't take this the wrong way but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?

Oh. Sweet. Jesus. Call the fucking police. Now!

Oh, and she named and shamed him publicly afterwards. Classy.

So many thoughts are swilling throughout my mind, that if I don’t curtail them to a certain degree then this will become an uber-post. I suppose the most important one is just how weak and pathetic women infected by feminism can be. Can I imagine a woman of my mother’s generation making such a fuss about something like this? Now, it is creepy, I’ll admit that. An elevator is a confined place and it’s an early hour of the morning but I guess that he liked you Rebecca, and he was waiting to ask you all evening and grabbed a chance and that he didn’t think about the creepiness of it at the time and was probably a little bit intoxicated and… Well, he probably regrets liking you now doesn’t he?

If only feminists come in bright colours like tree frogs do. Then you’d know to stay away from something that is incredibly dangerous.

Rebecca Watson is, of course, the classic victim narcissist. An event like this that most decent people would drop, or communicate to friends, is aired out to dry for the whole world to see. The point? To bring attention to herself and her victim ideology. Rebecca, like all religious dogmatists, has a deep need to prove herself right on the issues she holds emotionally true. Every little thing becomes further fuel for the cause. “See! I told you we’ve still got some way to go”. However, as the privilege of women continues its inexorable rise, the examples they need to use to prove their case become increasingly thin; hence clumsy elevator passes.

But I guess we’re all talking about Rebecca Watson now aren’t we? Remember, this is a woman who foisted her wedding on an auditorium of unsuspecting people who didn’t come there for that event.

There are so many more troubling things people are saying though. One things PZ was harping on about was that us men are somehow striding around considering it our right to proposition women in all sorts of ways. First off, the denial that it’s not men’s role to do this (socialized, biological or not, I don’t care, it’s the way it is) is another grand Leftist denial of human nature. Does he think this is a privilege for us?! I suppose he also thinks it’s a privilege for us to pay for the meals at dates too?

I truly hate these people.

I don’t buy that PZ was ever a great puller. Does he remember the horrible feeling when approaching a woman in a club, or wherever? I tell you, you don’t feel happy to have that privilege then. If you’d give anything to have the other sex have that privilege then it ain’t privilege.

The last point before this absorbs my entire morning is about the sheer wussification of the atheist/skeptic community. Now, people have been supporting the side of sanity on this, but it’s a battle between PC feminism and a slightly lesser version of it. I’m not happy to belong to a classification that has anything more than 10% of people who would make a comment like this:

I'm sorry we men can? be horrible assholes a lot of the time. It gets me down. Hopefully we'll grow.

(from the youtube comments on Watson’s video)

Oh yes mistress! We can change our silly, boyish ways, teach us the ways of the angelic being that we know women to be!

What. A. Worthless. Pussy.

So I think that’s it for today. The atheist/skeptic community is filled with worthless, weak, pathetic men. Angry, furious, chip-on-the-shoulder embittered women. Feminism has turned women into losers; and last.

This thread really is the last on this specific topic. The only thing I've so far found useful about them is that they've smoked the flaming misogynists out of the woodwork. Try not to be one of them, OK?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php

It’s good to know that the issues are always, the saints versus the haters. Classic left.

Plans

ArgusEyes — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 10:23:20 GMT

Hello there. Blog? What blog?

Yes, I’ve been quite neglectful of this old boy. The truth is that I’m powering up to start creating videos again. I’m aiming to make them in a much nicer format something, maybe, akin to what Qualiasoup on YouTube does. However, this requires learning animation packages and I also want to re-write this blog to be in custom made technology, it currently uses free .NET software but I always want to create my own sites, so that’s what I’ve been doing.

Why skepticism is important

ArgusEyes — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:52:56 GMT

Dr. Steven Novella has made a very good post over at neurologia blog.

Humans are not entirely rational creatures. We all know this from daily experience, although we happily assume that we are more rational than other people (which is just one of our irrationalities). We are motivated by the need for meaning, and for esteem. We tend to pick sides, and then invest our egos in that side, defending it at all costs.

We are also motivated by the need for simplicity and control. The world is a very complex place, overwhelmingly so. Therefore we need to simplify it in our minds, so that we can deal with it. We use schematics, and categories, and rules of thumb to impose a manageable order on the chaos of reality. These devices are quite adaptive, as long as we realize that they are just that – human devices to approximate reality in a way we can handle.

But too often we confuse our simplistic models of reality with reality. Further, we like our morality plays to be black and white. The villains are villains, without redeeming qualities. The good guys wear white and have no major flaws (nothing beyond an endearing quirk). The ambiguities and gray of the world make us feel uncomfortable. This tendency, by the way, leads to certain logical fallacies, such as poisoning the well. If Hitler believed something, and everything Hitler did was bad, then that belief must also be bad.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-vaxers-and-the-need-for-clarity/

I know from experience that many skeptics make it hard to like them. They can come off as (and be) instantly judgmental and unskeptical of their own opinions because they think they have the golden method for determining what is true. However, skepticism as a method, is a way of evaluating truth claims that incorporates the fallibilities of the human mind into the equation, and that is very, very important.

Take this optical illusion which I found on bad astronomy.

Optical illusions strike at the heart of the concept of our brains being pure machines that records what we see and keeps it on “hard disk” so to speak.

Someone once asked me that didn’t I know that people who choose to believe in woo, already know this stuff? In my experience this is not the case, people who credulously relay what they’ve heard or say “I believe it because I saw it”, don’t know about the ways the brain can trick us. Skepticism acknowledges that the road to truth requires standards of evidence and knowledge of the human psyche. This is why I find it to be the most reliable “ideology” (if that word even fits) that one can prescribe to; well above any dogma or political faith.

The modern atheist movement is a boiling sea of oppression and bigotry

ArgusEyes — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:42:09 GMT

..by which I mean people may innocently call female atheists pretty.

Oh noes!

[Me, trying to make a purchase]: Do you have any of these in a box that doesn't say "from someone in New Orleans who loves you"? I was going to get them for my lab and that might be kind of creepy.

[Retail salesguy]: Your lab? I'm not sure those are good for dogs.

[Me]: No, not the dog lab. A science lab. My laboratory. The people who work for me.

[RSG]: Oh, you're here for the science conference?

[Me]: Yes, microbiology. I study germs.

[RSG]: But you can't be a scientist!

[Me]: I can't?

[RSG]: No, you don't look like a microbiologist.

[Me]: Um, what exactly does a microbiologist look like, then?

[RSG]: Uh...

[Me]: Because I'm pretty sure that I am one. (Rummaging through bag, digging out ASM nametag). Yep, that's my name, and that's the microbiology conference logo right there.

[RSG]: But you're too pretty! You should be in Hollywood.

[Me]: (picking up bag, leaving unpurchased boxes on counter) I bet you've had dozens of scientists just like me through your store today, and never even realized it because of the stereotypes you hold. Conference runs through tomorrow, so I hope you'll say hello to a few of them.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2011/05/youre_too_prettyyoungfemale_ta.php

Let’s make a parallel. I’m a computer nerd; computer nerds have a reputation of being either thin & sickly, with glasses or a fat tub or lard. Say, if I were an attractive guy (let’s make this a though experiment shall we? Since I am firmly in that aforementioned fat tub of lard demographic so solidly that you’d think I’d have pioneered the stereotype), and I was talking to a bird, and she said something like “oh, you’re far too normal/handsome to be a programmer!”.

Now, if I started stomping my foot and making a big stink about the “bad image of programmers” then you could legitimately call me a sad berk. Many women do it. Fine.. After all, they have a berk-enabling ideology called feminism behind them, driving their actions.

Check out one comment at the thread at the above post:

This summer a fellow med student told me I got called nurse a lot bc I'm young and pretty...?? Um bc OBVIOUSLY there are no young or pretty med students or doctors and all nurses are young, beautiful females. So frustrating!

God dammit! The thought of living in a world where you get called beautiful all the time, it makes me want to fucking puke! That level of oppression.

Here's a hint guys. No compliments. Don't compliment women, don't even bother.
And when they complain that we don't, cite shit like this..

If you’re wearing a whore’s uniform…

ArgusEyes — Mon, 30 May 2011 18:18:06 GMT

So these ridiculous slut walks are heading in my general geographic direction.

A "Slut Walk" protest is planned in Wellington next month as protests grow following a police officer's remarks about how woman should dress to avoid sexual assaults.

In Boston approximately 2000 protesters marched yesterday some holding signs saying We love sluts! and Jesus loves sluts, Associated Press reported.

The protest movement, sparked by a Toronto police officer's remark that women could avoid being raped by not dressing like "sluts," came to Boston after advocates saw similar events - largely organised through Facebook and Twitter - pop up in Canada, England and other parts of the US.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4976243/Slut-Walk-protest-planned-for-Wellington

I don’t have much to say on this topic. So I’ll let Mr. Chappelle say it best.

Also, whilst Googling for images to use in this post, I came upon a piece called “These 'slut walk' women are simply fighting for their right to be dirty” by Germaine Greer (the subtitle is “True liberation is women wearing what they like and abandoning the Hoover.” – what fucking decade is this stupid woman living in?). I love how ridiculous feminism has become. Look at the words used here, “fight”, “right”. Question; what right are these women being deprived of? Is there some sharia-style law being proposed against slutty clothes. No. A police officer made a comment. Oh noes! Better take to the streets then! You gotta know how to pick your fights in life I guess…

Oh BTW, if you’re a man, and you’re at one of these slut walks in the march, you’re a pussy.

A Man Is a Rape-Supporter If….

ArgusEyes — Sun, 22 May 2011 14:44:18 GMT

So TheAmazingAtheist has done a critique of a feminist argument about the things that make you a rape supporter. I think I’ve found the original source:

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Read it if you want to get furious. The comments are fawning, and yes she does filter them. She is as dogmatic as a human can get. She’s not stupid, she’s also a terrible human being.

So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who does not fit this list. Anybody?

So you’ve engineered a list where almost all men are going to meet its criteria. Then you label these people “rape supporters”. I don’t think I can really express how I feel when I think about this so I’ll just say. To the author. Do words have meanings to you? Do you actually think about what you’re saying. To equate such a horrendous term, with such a horrendous meaning, with almost all men makes you a scum of the highest order.

P.S. A previous post on Meg White was removed because the blogger software I submitted it with cut off the actual point of the piece. As it read on this site for a few weeks, it seemed like a unprovoked attack on a person with no reason.

Teachers with past lives.. and a particularly vicious screed

ArgusEyes — Fri, 13 May 2011 00:14:36 GMT

Every so-often you see a case of a teacher who is fired for some reason not relating to their conduct as a teachers. Maybe they write saucy novels in their spare time. Maybe, like Melissa Petro, they were a former sex worker.

I have two master's degrees, five years' experience in the nonprofit sector and three years' experience teaching -- and I cannot get a job. Why? Just google me. I'm the "Hooker Teacher" -- at least that's what I've come to be called ever since Sept. 27, 2010, when I found myself on the cover of the New York Post.

"Meet Melissa Petro," the story began," the teacher who gives a new twist to sex ed." The piece describes me as a "tattooed former hooker and stripper" who was "shockingly upfront about her past." Indeed, earlier that month, I'd written an Op-Ed on the Huffington Post that criticized the recent censoring of the adult services section of Craigslist and came clean about my own sex-worker past. Because I was arguing that sex workers shouldn't be ashamed to speak for themselves, I signed my name to it. The New York Post wasn't interested in my politics, however; its interest seemed only in cooking up shock that an elementary school teacher would dare admit such a shady history.

http://www.salon.com/life/sex_work/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/05/04/hooker_teacher_what_i_was_thinking

Now, my opinion on this is that people are allowed to have past lives. Their qualities as a teacher should be judged on what they do in the now in the classroom. To eject people who had shady pasts who are perfectly fine teachers now (yes, that is an assumption – I have seen no criticisms of her performance as an actual teacher in all of this) is to ensure that actual humans, with experiences that can shed new perspectives on their craft, cannot become members of a certain profession.

It’s a knee-jerk reaction to try to maintain purity in certain kinds of professions. It happens in politics mainly, where any kind of event from the past can be used against political opponents. We get bland mindless barby and ken doll politicians because they couldn’t be anything but, any sign of individuality can be used to sow doubt and voters will be “just not sure”.

That aside, there is another chapter in this sordid tale I want to bring up here. A particularly vile and viscious article that has been written against Melissa Petro entitled “Idiot prosti-teacher didn't learn lesson”.

The amount of vileness in this piece is astounding. One cannot even skip past the title, which is a slanderous lie. As if a past history of being a prostitute means she is a “prosti-teacher”? Please. The first paragraph of the piece is:

This is one whore with chutzpah.

Excuse me? What did you just write there? Again, does a past define you forever? Is Melissa forever a “whore”. What kind of blatant thuggery is this piece? The amount of pejoratives as verbs and blatant bleeding of hatred into the descriptive language is enough, in my mind, to ensure in any decent world that the writer, Andrea Peyser, should never be employable as a writer again.

Melissa Petro, the stripper/hooker who was reborn a public-school teacher, thinks her Bronx art students are too dumb to understand Petro's written ravings about her career as a proud and empowered slut.

…

Petro floated into the National Arts Club yesterday in a virginal white mohair coat, navy-blue minidress, and brown sky-high platform do-me pumps.

…

she responded in a high-pitched, little-girl lisp.

…

"I don't think my thtudents could comprehend my work, and if they did, they deserve an A," she said condescendingly.

…

She'd been outed by this newspaper as a former sex worker, then charged by the school system with "conduct unbecoming a teacher." More like conduct unbecoming a human being.

…

The bleached-blond Petro, who lives in Manhattan, wrote a filthy and "racially insensitive" 2007 article in Post Road Magazine about stripping and whoring in Cincinnati, the investigator noted.

…

Melissa Petro, Happy-Hooker-turned-social-giant. Wrap her in police tape, and hide the kids.

What about the children! Hold them close to mother’s breast and whisper in their ear that everything will be alright. The irony of the second-to-last paragraph is great, glass houses Andrea, stones, avoid.

I agree with this sentiment

ArgusEyes — Tue, 10 May 2011 22:32:09 GMT

There’s a lot of good stuff here, I agree that Marie Curie is overused and that if you want to be great, you aim for that dream and devote yourself to it. We all know that the contributions of certain female historical figures can be extremely overrated but, for the sake of argument, I’ll accept the case histories in the comic. There are undoubtedly many female achievements in the past that were hidden behind male names, grabbed from the spotlight and denied from the potential of achievement by social and biological factors. I say we have what I’ve always believed we should have. A meritocracy, based upon an equal playing fields. No one is denied for any factor other than skill and let the best rise to the top.

The horrors of rape

ArgusEyes — Thu, 05 May 2011 22:56:23 GMT

From time to time, we must reacquaint ourselves with the horrors of rape. Only posting/reading false rape claims will lead to a reality-distorting echo-chamber effect where we are at risk of becoming callous and undermining the horror of what true rape actually is. This story from the Guardian by Liz Seccuro is tragic reading.

He dragged me down the hall like a rag doll, into a room, grabbed me around the waist, sat me on his lap and began reading to me from a volume of poetry. I squirmed, trying to set myself free. He stuck his tongue in my ear and told me to settle down.

Adrenaline kicked in and I freed myself, running into the hall, screaming. At that precise moment, the music was turned up loud and one of the guys from the bar calmly walked over to me, picked me up like a sack of ashes and deposited me back into the waiting arms of the bespectacled stranger.

What happened next was unspeakable. He raped me repeatedly, despite my screams. I awoke sporadically throughout the night; hearing voices, feeling hands. I could not move. At last, light flooded the room. I saw that I was lying on a filthy orange couch, covered in a filthy sheet, across the room from where I was raped. The sheet was covered with large spots of blood. As I tried to get upright, I realised, with horror, that the blood was my own. It had dried in rivulets down my legs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/30/rape-justice-after-20-years

The rest of the article details how Liz’s attempt to report the rape went on deaf ears and how she managed, 20 years later, to have him convicted.

A true buffoon

ArgusEyes — Wed, 04 May 2011 01:34:33 GMT

Via Dispatched From the Culture Wars. Jesse Jackson once liked and now doesn’t like the iPad. Welcome to my world Jesse! Screw apple! But wait..

A few short weeks ago I came to the House floor after having purchased an iPad and said that I happened to believe, Mr. Speaker, that at some point in time this new device, which is now probably responsible for eliminating thousands of American jobs ... now Borders is closing stores because, why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go to Barnes & Noble? Buy an iPad and download your book, download your newspaper, download your magazine....

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/a_truly_bizarre_political_reve.php#more

Well, if you’re anything like me then you tried eBooks and didn’t like em’, you feel far better with a hardback book in your hands then a kindle or somesuch device; but let’s continue.

...what becomes of publishing companies and publishing company jobs? What becomes of book stores and librarians and all of the jobs associated with paper? Well, in the not-too-distant future such jobs simply will not exist.

Maybe. However, there won’t be masses of people sitting around unemployed (well, maybe there will but it won’t be because of the death of paper) because, you see, there’ll be new jobs and new avenues of human endeavor which will need people behind it. The luddites have always made claims like this. Say, for example, that the loom will destroy jobs with it’s automation. Here we are in the future, are there masses of unemployed people due to the invention of the loom? Nope. It’s called progress Jesse. Get behind it.

Steve Jobs is doing pretty well. He's created the iPad. Certainly it's made life more efficient for Americans, but the iPad is produced in China. It's not produced here in the United States. So the Chinese get to take advantage of our First Amendment values, that is, to provide freedom of speech through the iPad to the American people.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/a_truly_bizarre_political_reve.php#more

Okay, that’s just incoherent. It’s interesting how freedom of speech is “provided” and government is to impose by fiat (it is told he wants these things banned so I am going under that assumption here) what is and what is not produced due to his stupidity. He views the job market as a limited pie and probably does with wages and other economic forces too. The man is a fool and buffoon of the highest order. This goes some way to explain how he’s on the left, where such ideas find a hold.

Women in spaaaaaace

ArgusEyes — Tue, 03 May 2011 09:56:39 GMT

So Phil Plait, a nice guy to be sure, has made another preening post wringing his hands about the lamentable status of women in the field of science. I don’t know about you, but when I look around the office here, I don’t see women doing too badly.

I am not an expert in gender diversity in the sciences, but through my reading and talking about it with scientists, it appears that big strides have been made in the past decade or two, but the goal of gender equity is obviously still a ways off.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/29/women-as-planetary-science-role-models/

“The goal of gender equity”. As if it’s a given. I don’t understand how leftists make this argument. The goal of gender equity amongst nurses and hair stylists is still a long way off. However, it should always be a long way off, or near, or past it, depending solely upon the free decisions of individuals who want to enter the field. I don’t want the leviathan to coerce the people to go into certain fields based upon what is basically a religion, Phil’s not doing that here though:

One thing I do know is that all disciplines need role models, and I just found out about an interesting web site called Women in Planetary Sciences (motto: "Women make up half the bodies in the solar system. Why not half the scientists?") which has a series of interviews with women planetary scientists. I know a few of these folks — like Emily Lakdawalla, Heidi Hammel, and Sara Seager, names that may be familiar to regular BA readers — and reading their stories is pretty interesting.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/29/women-as-planetary-science-role-models/

You know what? Fine. I’m fine with passive role-models being made available to girls to get them into science. This is activism that is not forced down our throats like the fascistic 40% women on boards law. I find his motto telling. "Women make up half the bodies in the solar system. Why not half the scientists?". This confuses me slightly. Why not half the scientists? Because women and men are not the same. It’s not even a question to me that women and men will trend to different things, we have different minds and different bodies. It’s not a burr in my psyche that this is true, it’s not something that I’m going to victimize myself over or toss and turn at night over.

Scratch one scumbag

ArgusEyes — Tue, 03 May 2011 09:36:36 GMT

The world just got slightly better.

Fuck the royal family

ArgusEyes — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:11:36 GMT

My escape from the UK hasn’t stopped royal wedding from being thrust down my throat on multiple occasions.

Those who know me know my opinion of the monarchy. I don’t have a lot of time to write about it now, but given current events, I thought I should offer some thoughts.

I read a while ago, a serious new piece about the problems of Kate Middleton being a commoner and what implications this would have for her engagement. Commoner. Seriously?

I don’t know about you, but when you use the term ‘commoner’ with someone, it is rarely a praise. But this is what we all are in Britain, commoners, peasents, peons, people divided by a blood-based caste system into un-breachable layers of state-granted privilege.

This is an idea that should be repugnant to any liberty-loving enlightened person living in the 21st century.

Are people outraged? Are they fuck? Yay! Excitement! A big royal wedding and lots of goss! They’re good for the tourism don’t you know? After all, they don’t have any power anyhow.

I’ve heard the arguments above in real life (the most prominent being the tourism and “no real power”) ones. Most people don’t care that there’s a royal family. I don’t get it. This teaches me two things.

Most people don’t want freedom. Community, a sense of belonging, leaders or gods to follow and worship. People care more about these things than the abstract concept of liberty and freedom.
Most people wouldn’t know a serious philosophical idea if it bit them on the arse. It’s rare to meet someone who is acquainted with the meaning of political terms, a knowledge of thought systems and logical fallacies. The overarching ideas of the affront to democracy and republicanism, the use of constitutions, these things are not considered when people think about royalty. The aforementioned tourism argument is an example of this, if a person considers this to be a valid point, then they’ve got their priorities mixed up a little bit on my opinion.

I will make a full video on the monarchy one of these days.

To Kate and Princy-boy. This’s for you, sing it Johnny!

New Physics

ArgusEyes — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:06:26 GMT

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium".

Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass. When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium - an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as
many peons but twice as many morons.

Larry Summers Version 2.0

ArgusEyes — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:02:03 GMT

Alright. This is a story which has really gotten my goat, for reasons that a so numerous; the least of which are the single-minded subservience by the politically correct faithful, the sheer lack of actual sexism and the fascism and thought policing of the PC thugs who have taken over many aspects of academia and western culture.

So like Larry Summers, Dr. Lazar Greenfield is an experienced and skilled professional who is being drummed out of a position due to some comments which have offended the PC knee-jerk brigade of feminist fanciers. (Sorry, have I used enough pejoratives? It’s probably over the top but this disgusts me and I really, really hate these people.). From respectful insolence (abbreviate for the point, go to the main article and read the whole thing).

I actually don't think so. Basically, it's a story of a surgeon making a fool of himself

…

An utterly brilliant man, Dr. Greenfield has authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, 55 book chapters, and 8 books.

…

This year, he reached one of the ultimate professional pinnacles in surgery, being elected to be the incoming president of the American College of Surgeons, the largest and most influential surgical organization. Given that Dr. Greenfield is 78, it appeared that he was finishing his career on a high note.

…

Then, as editor, he decided to write a truly bizarre Valentine's Day-themed editorial for Surgery News. So offensive was the editorial considered among women that the entire issue of GSN was pulled from the web and Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign as editor. What caused such a ruckus? Dr. Greenfield apparently thinks that semen is a mood-enhancing antidepressant.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php#more

Now, I remember this study as I saw it on PhysOrg.com when it came up, I can’t find that link despite my data-archiving tendencies (typical!) so here’s the study from the source. I so want to get this in case it “disappears” from the internet. The premise is that semen, when absorbed through the walls of the vagina, can have anti-depressant and mood-uplifting effects due the hormones contained in that semen. I’ve seen other similar proposed biological effects of semen in the literature, though I do not have the expertise to judge such claims. I rely on people who know more than I to do that.

Now, what I stated above is perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis. It’s either true or not (or proven and unproven if you want to methodologically pedantic), either way, this is a question for science. Orac has some thoughts.

In other words, in order to make a joke (apparently), Dr. Greenfield picked what is at best a dubious study upon which to base it. Worse, he didn't simply say that sex makes women happier (which probably wouldn't have caused much of a stir; after all there's little doubt it makes men happier, too) or taken a Barry White-like position that it's time to get it on. Rather, he said that it is the semen makes women happy, that getting it on isn't enough by itself. In other words, the implication of Dr. Greenfield's wildly inappropriate little joke, published in the official news magazine of the ACS, is that a woman needs a man to inject his seed into her in order to be truly happy. Therein, I suspect, lies the subtext that elevated the outrage over Dr. Greenfield's remarks to the level they've reached. If he had simply tried to argue, even based on biology, that a little nookie on Valentine's Day can make a man and woman grow closer based on biology, no one would have complained--or likely even argued. Of course, he would have had to leave out out that final study as his justification and in particular left out the bit of its having nothing to do with "promiscuity"--what is this, the 1950s?--but if he had done those things he might have crafted a mildly amusing paean to physical love on Valentine's Day. I'm sure that was probably his intent, but instead he ended up implying that unmarried college age women should have unprotected sex on Valentine's Day because it would make them happier.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php#more

Here’s that “wildly inappropriate little joke”:

“So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sexism-charges-divide-surgeons-group/

Shock and horror!

I think you can see now, where the outrage is coming from. This has ticked a list of leftist political pressure points.

It can be perceived as being anti-condom use. This could be used by groups like conservatives or religious fundamentalists to argue against condom use.
It deals with promiscuity as indicated by Orac’s “what is this, the 1950s” outburst. The question of whether promiscuity is better for women doesn’t matter. It’s politically incorrect to say it. Political correctness is an insipid thought-controlling fascistic ideology.
I expect the reasoning behind this is that anything that can be viewed as placing standards on the behavior of women is some kind of plot to keep the “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” or some such rubbish like that. The feminists and feminist sympathizers hate this. Remember a while ago, I made a video about Dennis Prager’s column on women who’s constant refusal to have sex for not “being in the mood” garnered hysteria from many on the web. To suggest that women’s mood in refusing sex may have negative effects on their relationship and thus be something they don’t want to do that often is certainly true, may be good advice, and it is an accusation that women can’t do whatever they want and suffer no repercussions from it. Such a thing is the true effect of liberty. Feminists want tyranny.
It’s catnip to confirm what they already believe. Never underestimate this temptation in the human animal. We walk around in a cloud of delusions and we seek confirmatory evidence to sustain that cloud of delusions. The waffling hairpieces are moaning about the “state of women” in surgery over this. What this has to do with his comments is beyond me, probably something about a “hostile” workplace or some such thing. I don’t deny that hostile workplaces can exist, in part. I do, however, expect women/whoever to rise above it. That previous statement has set the leftists who read it into a tizzy because it suggests that women become stronger individually rather than moan and be victims.

This isn’t a debate over truth. It’s hysteria.

PC-fuelled too. I keep asking this, but where’s the sexism.

“I was aghast,” said Dr. Colleen Brophy, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, and a member of the organization for over 20 years. Dr. Brophy, who served as chairwoman of its surgical research committee, publicly resigned from the College on Thursday. “I’ve gone back and reviewed the science, and it’s erroneous,” she said. “But I’m resigning from the college not so much because of the editorial but because of the leadership’s response to it.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sexism-charges-divide-surgeons-group/

Sounds a bit like Nancy Hopkins from the Larry Summers affair doesn’t it?

Nancy Hopkins, a biology student at the school, stumbled outside claiming, if she stayed, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

http://takimag.com/article/ann_coulter_and_ottawa_u_goodbye_college_hello_madrasah

I recommend you all read this piece from the nytimes blog entitled “Sexism Charges Divide Surgeons’ Group”. Again, what sexism?! It waffles on about the numbers of female surgeons etc, the “old guard” versus the new surgeons coming up through the ranks who embrace “transparency” (through thought policing – please). It’s quite a piece of avoidance and confuscation.

“I’ve gone back and reviewed the science, and it’s erroneous,” she said. “But I’m resigning from the college not so much because of the editorial but because of the leadership’s response to it.”

What response? Where?

“I’m not sure some of the old guard see this as the watershed moment it is,” she continued. Referring to the college’s role as a standard bearer for surgeons and an advocacy organization for patient care and patient safety, she added: “It’s not so much about Dr. Greenfield anymore. It’s about the spine of our organization and the principles by which the organization governs itself.”

What does that mean? Explain!

“There are all these men and women out there who are afraid to say something,” said Dr. Barbara Lee Bass, chairwoman of surgery at the Methodist Hospital in Houston, who recently served on the college’s governing board. “It reveals that there is still this intimidation and fearfulness, and that’s what troubles me most.”

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About?

These people don’t think, they feel. The world is on its head.

The veil in France & the BBC is biased (shock)

ArgusEyes — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:04:16 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397

At least two women have been briefly detained in France while wearing Islamic veils, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.

Police said they were held not because of their veils but for joining an unauthorised protest, and they were later released.

France is the first country in Europe to publicly ban a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.

Offenders face a fine of 150 euros (£133; $217) and a citizenship course.

People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years.

I was all set to rant about this but then I read the news article for the second time and noticed the bias in it. Notice that the title is “Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban”, the article states that the police say they were charged on other things, not for wearing the veil. Yet the language of the piece subtly associates the fact that they were detained whilst wearing the veils. Most people will walk away with a distorted opinion of what the truth actually is. Let me be clear. I don’t know what the reason was, there is the police BS and then there is the real truth and the two are not necessarily one and the same.

That aside. Here’s my opinion on the veil ban in France. If you were to ask me for a list of countries that didn’t know the difference between personal freedom and their own arsehole, I would probably put France near the top of the list. It’s interesting to see their spasmodic attempts to fight back against the extremes of Islam resulting in draconian impositions on what perfectly fine pieces of clothing the citizenry can wear. Yes I look down on the veil, but I also look down on governments who intrude into the lives of the people and thing that the short-sighted “pass a law” approach is an appropriate reaction to a larger problem.

I take part in an unscrupulous line-up

ArgusEyes — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:45:35 GMT

What blog? Yes, sorry. However, I have a number of posts to make today so let’s get started.

A woman on YouTube contacted me asking to use a portion of my “Look not to feminism but to science” video. It is for a documentary promo that she is trying to make:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lydiamariehicksfilms/rediscovering-the-scientist-documentary

Now, I seem to be put in a bad light here. I don't mind and I still consent to be used but the video is interesting in the mentality it puts forward. If you click on the link and go the website for the video, you'll see this oft-repeated Charles Darwin quote at the beginning of the text.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world.” –Charles Darwin from, “The Descent of Man” 1871

Not good. I did make a reply back to her and we'll see where this goes.

I hope you don't mind if I make a few comments? The lady about four minutes in, the one who got sick and changed her major; she seems to have a pretty strong entitlement and victim complex. She made numerous statements about how other people should have motivated her and how the course didn't cater to her as a black and a woman. Is this a healthy mentality? The world is never going to be handed to us on a platter and people who expect this, will fail at life and constantly blame others. Will your documentary be a perpetuitous line of people with this mentality? Are you going to critique this mentality and inspect academically achieved black people like John McWorter and Neil deGrasse Tyson to see if they subscribed to this mentality? I suspect that they probably don’t.

Also, the quote from Darwin at the beginning seems to be one in a line-up of white males (of which I appear to be one) who are to be detested. In this instance your agenda aligns with that of creationists and evolution deniers to paint Darwin in a bad light. However, that quote was not the full story. Darwin was racist by our modern standards. However, in the light of the time in which he lived, he was quite progressive on the issue of race. This quote was not support by Darwin for the extermination of races but it is instead a justification for his theory as to why large gaps may appear in the fossil record. It is a fact that some of the earlier hominid species were probably eliminated by the more advanced hominids. May I ask what your purpose is in posting this quote right at the beginning?

Beer

ArgusEyes — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:21:19 GMT

Yesterday, scientists for the FDA suggested that men should take a look at their beer consumption, considering the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer. The theory is that drinking beer makes men turn into women.

To test the finding, 100 men were fed 6 pints of beer each. It was then observed that 100% of the men gained weight, talked excessively without making sense, became overly emotional, couldn't drive, failed to think rationally, argued over nothing, and refused to apologize when wrong.

No further testing is planned.

Oh hush. It’s just a joke.

The Big Picture: Christchurch Earthquake

ArgusEyes — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:29:54 GMT

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/02/christchurch_earthquake.html

The great Christchurch earthquake of 2011

ArgusEyes — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:46:17 GMT

It stared midday and I was in the office. A small *shunt* noise which signifies many of the larger aftershocks occurred, it sounds somewhat like a car was driven into the building. Then it rapidly built to a heavy shaking, you know in your gut when it’s going to be bad and we all dove under our desks. The view from under there was quite spectacular, bits of the ceiling were falling down onto the chair which was seconds ago, inhabited by my supply, pink form. When I emerged, the mezzanine floor was a mess, numerous gaps were in the ceiling, monitors and computers were on their side and a ceiling light was dangling by its power cord at face-level.

There was no chance of going back to work so the entirety of Christchurch emptied into the roads, the traffic situation was quite insane, the roads could simply not handle that many people at one time and you couldn’t move anywhere. Of course, I hadn’t come in on my bike on that day because it was raining in the morning (bloody fair weather driver!). So I was stuck for three hours trying to get home as opposed to breezing past the everlasting line of cars on the nimble bike laughing manically at the sheep in their unmovable metal monsters not going anywhere. Yeah, this thought occurred to me many times whilst I waited.

Whilst I slowly edged home, I saw some damage to the city. Shattered store front windows were a common sight. As were collapsed walls and piles of bricks beneath some buildings. Some streets were flooded and distorted. Since I suffered from a modicum of guilt from not taking advantage of the photographic opportunities offered by the earthquake from last September, once I got home I immediately grabbed my camera and headed back out to try and get some photos. Not award winning stuff but at least I did it. I’m still waiting to return to work for now.

More on ada lovelace

ArgusEyes — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 13:11:25 GMT

So I get mail.

My friend,

You have done some research choosing to use this particular book for reference. My question is what other research have you done into this subject to further back your arguement. You appear to pride yourself on having studied computing, yet those of us who have made it thus far have done so through critical thinking which involves a complete study into the matter using scholarly documents. Here is one for you to review: http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/contents.html By the way you could use some additional courses in html. Your pull-down for comments is less than satisfactory!

My reply:

Greetings Miscellaneous.

I have not done extensive research in this subject, I’ve done some sizeable research though. I am not writing academic papers or a book and if there is some evidence out there that proves me wrong, then I hope I am not close-minded enough to deny it and that I should modify my views accordingly. However, I feel I have done enough to make a judgement on this topic, Doron Swade is not a mere pleb, he is an expert on this topic.

Doron Swade MBE is a museum curator and author, specialising in the history of computing. He is especially known for his work on the computer pioneer Charles Babbage and his Difference Engine.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doron_Swade

From reading his book, I find this to be an accurate description. I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but he gave an excellent talk at google talks:

Fast-foward to 36 minutes and 30 second in to hear a brief word on Ada Lovelace, I adopt Dr. Swade’s position on these matters. The facts are not behind Ada Lovelace being either a mathematical genius or the first programmer.

Also, please observe my series of blog posts on this matter:

[1] http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2010/07/08/ada-lovelace-was-not-the-first-computer-programmer.aspx

[2] http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2010/07/17/does-truth-matter.aspx

Where in [1], I state the sources for Babbage being the original author of the program in the Menebrea paper. This seems to destroy the link you send me although you didn’t specify which part you wanted me to read.

I don’t know what you’re talking about with html. Strangely enough, I don’t program the YouTube website. Ending on such a petty point lessens your argument and makes you look like you are acting out of emotion rather than reason. Address the issues.

Sincerely, Mark

Raising boys as girls

ArgusEyes — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:24:30 GMT

Wow. No posts in a long time. Sorry. Here’s an interesting post by Jerry Coyne, author of “Why Evolution Is True” on the question of whether gender/sex behaviours are biologic in nature or socially constructed. As an aside, I have a book that’s next on my to-read list, entitled “As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl” by John Colapinto, this book details the case of David Reimer, a boy who lost his penis due to a botched circumcision at birth and was raised as a girl. The outcome was the same as in these cases that Coyne mentions, and I didn’t know that there were so many other case studies on this, these outcomes being that the boys raised as girls were raised in traditional stereotypical ways (given dolls, ovens, dresses, etc), and they rebelled and started showing traditionally male behaviours.

Reiner and Gearhart’s idea was this: if gender is “constructed” by socialization at birth, newborns who are raised as members of the opposite sex from birth should show behaviors characteristic of their “socialized” sex rather than their biological sex. Cloacal exstrophy gave them a chance to do this, because males born with the syndrome sometimes have their penises and testes removed, a vulva constructed instead, and are raised as girls. If the “socialization” hypothesis is correct, these males should show female-typical behaviors when older; if the biological hypothesis is correct, they should lean towards male behaviors.

The authors had a sample of fourteen newborn males with cloacal exstrophy whose parents agreed to participate in the study. The babies were surgically constructed to have female genitalia, and parents agreed to raise the boys as girls, never telling the children of their biological gender. (Two other males with the syndrome were raised as males even though they had the surgery.) Several of the parents were raising “normal” girls at the same time.

At ages ranging from 5 to 16, the female-raised males were given psychological tests that explored their interests in toys, dolls, and clothes, the time spent playing various games, athleticism, aggressive behavior, career and sexual interests, sex of friends, etc. They were also asked to declare their gender. The parents were also given questionnaires on their child’s behavior and relationships with other children.

The upshot: all 16 subjects, including those with female genitals raised as males, “revealed moderate-to-marked male-typical behaviors” compared to the scores of children raised according to their biological sex at birth. (The paper reports the scores for each child on a number of scales.) As for the parents, here’s what the authors report:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/evolutionary-psychology-gender-construction/

Please read the whole thing, it's fascinating. This should make an excellent topic for a video someday.

Do we have the right to label others as ‘feminists’?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:20:25 GMT

This is part 2 of a continuing the discussion with a feminist who wrote me a while ago.

Well. I do agree with some of that, but I think we have different definitions of what feminism actually is, and that's the main thing causing the conflict of ideas. See, to you, feminism is a movement, but to me. It’s more like an ideology; it’s just the IDEAS that women deserve legal and social equality to men. Which would make anyone who believes that (again, including you) a feminist.

In my last reply I reproduced the dictionary definition. I insinuated then, but will confirm now, that I agree with items one and two from that definition which state that feminism is both an ideology/belief system and a movement. In fact, if you think about it, no movement can proceed without a belief system underlying it. The point is that I don’t think that very simple mission statement that you mention of ‘women achieving social equality’ covers it.

The fact of the matter is that feminism is not a simple definitional category think about the definition “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” What is meant by social? What realms of politics are considered worthy of feminist consideration? What measure of equality? The whole range of ambiguities in this one sentence alone can lead to many different factions of feminism. Conservative feminism, socialist feminism, anarchist feminism, yada yada yada. You know all this I’m sure. The point I’m making is that the vagueness of the definition, leading to the complexity of the field of feminism, means that stating that a ‘person who believes these things’ is a feminist is a silly statement since there is no standard definition on what is being believed. My ideas of removing quotas and affirmative action would lead most feminists to proclaim me ‘anti-woman’ on the spot.

Also, I forgot to mention a killer reply in my last email, but do you know I made a video entitled ‘I love ‘I Love ifeminists!’? I don’t know if I said it there, but I have stated that I wouldn’t mind if someone called me an ifeminist. I hope that example emphasises that I am not simplistic on this matter and when a feminist movement adopts individualist positions on those topics of social equality and political equality that I mentioned earlier, that I will be happy to adopt it as a label. I do think it is a bad idea to label other people if they do not want to be labelled. A famous evolutionary biologist like Kenneth Miller believes in a creator God, but if you labelled him a ‘Creationist’ then it would create some nasty connotations as much as one might say that he was deserving of the term. It is up to each man and woman to decide whether he or she is a feminist, it is not for others to apply the term by fiat unto others.

And if you think of it like that, you can get a better analogue to where radical feminists fit in here: if feminism is an ideology, you can compare it to another ideology: Islam. Almost all feminists are the equivalent of normal Muslims, people who have certain ideas about the world, human nature, morality etc. and stick to them, respecting them, but not going out of their way to bend everyone around them to their way of thinking. Some will have trouble getting along with people whose views are antithetical to their own, but it won’t be too serious, and they don’t really have a defined goal (not anymore, in the case of feminists) thanks to their feminism or Islam faith, they don’t really have an intended destination, it’s just a philosophy that helps define how they see the world.

Some, like me, are the imams, so to speak, trying to make others a little less opposed to us and trying to teach others about it

Radical feminists, on the other hand, are our equivalent of Al-Qaeda. They’re the ones with a defined goal, who think that any ideology other than their own must be ground under their heel. almost all of them are crazy, they follow a very extreme and hugely warped version of the original ideas, they are (sadly) usually the first thing a non-member thinks of when someone mentions "Islam" or "feminism", and their actions are doing far more harm to the people they think they represent than good.

The radical Islamists are still Muslims, and the radical imams are still imams. This idea, though not explicitly stated, that they get ousted from Islam because of their reprehensible views is the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. Like it or not, the fundamentalists take a different reading of scripture and a different approach to how they should act, but they are not less Muslims. And no, they are not crazy.

And even though the radicals make up about ten percent of Muslims worldwide, that ten percent are the ones who cause a lot of problems. The fact that they’re radical means that the meaning of their life is the activism of promoting their vision of Islam, whereas the moderate Muslims are more concerned with getting on with their lives, jobs and families. The standard question I ask feminists who pose questions like you have, is to ask what feminist organisations they head? Which university courses they teach? Perhaps you could answer these questions as well. The answer is always that they do not do these things because like the moderate Muslims, they are not devoted to activism. In this sense, the moderates are largely irrelevant to our consideration of feminism, since they are not the ones making the impact on policy and leading the movement.

Two pieties

ArgusEyes — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:22:09 GMT

I am currently reading Theodore Dalrymple’s book ‘Our Culture, What's Left of it: The Mandarins and the Masses’. This section near the end was powerful for me.

In fact the situation of Muslim girls in my city is even worse than Juliet’s. Every Muslim girl in my city has heard of the killing of such as she back in Pakistan, on refusal to marry her first cousin, betrothed to her by her father, all unknown to her, in the earliest years of her childhood. The girl is killed because she has impugned family honour by breaking her father’s word, and any half-hearted official inquiry into the death by the Pakistani authorities is easily and cheaply bought off. And even if she is not killed, she is expelled from the household—O sweet my mother, cast me not away!—and regarded by her ‘community’ as virtually a prostitute, fair game for any man who wants her.

This pattern of betrothal causes suffering as intense as any I know of. It has terrible consequences. One father prevented his daughter, highly intelligent and ambitious to be a journalist, from attending school, precisely to ensure her lack of Westernisation and economic independence. He then took her, aged 16, to Pakistan for the traditional forced marriage (silence, or a lack of open objection, amounts to consent in these circumstances, according to Islamic law) to a first cousin whom she disliked from the first and who forced his attentions on her. Granted a visa to come to Britain, as if the marriage were a bona fide one—the British authorities having turned a cowardly blind eye to the real nature of such marriages in order to avoid the charge of racial discrimination—he was violent toward her.

She had two children in quick succession, both of whom were so severely handicapped that they would be bedridden for the rest of their short lives and would require nursing 24 hours a day. (For fear of giving offence, the press almost never alludes to the extremely high rate of genetic illnesses among the offspring of consanguineous marriages.) Her husband, deciding that the blame for the illnesses was entirely hers, and not wishing to devote himself to looking after such useless creatures, left her, divorcing her after Islamic custom. Her family ostracised her, having concluded that a woman whose husband had left her must have been to blame and was the next thing to a whore. She threw herself off a cliff, but was saved by a ledge.

I’ve heard a hundred variations of her emblematic story. Here, for once, are instances of unadulterated female victimhood, yet the silence of the feminists is deafening. Where two pieties—feminism and multiculturalism—come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.

Feedback from a rational feminist: Radical, moderates and the depravity of the feminist movement

ArgusEyes — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:00:48 GMT

I have received some feedback via my YouTube channel and I have written a response that many here may want to read. I have included the salient parts of her email to me in my reply so I shall not reproduce her email first, but I shall put it below my reply.

(pleasantries omitted)

well, the first point is difficult to prove with figures etc, but a conversation with a cross-section of people who identify as feminist would reveal that very few are radical, and most of the non-radicals think radicals are insane too.

At first, I started to disagree with you on this. However, after considering the point in more detail, I actually agree. I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding on how each of us defines the word “radical” I think you use the term mainly in conjunction with actions, such as the shrieking harpy like feminists ala Harriett Harman and Andrea Dworkin. However, I use the term for radical ideas. Such as ideas which take a radical departure from the tradition of western societies (in concordance with the #1 definition of radical in the dictionary; ‘of or going to the root or origin’).

Now, I do think that most people who self-identify as feminists are not the harpy kind. However, they do hold the belief system of the radicals, albeit, it a more toned down for, and this leads them to not oust the more radical feminists from the leadership. After all, what kind of movement would have an intellectual leadership that doesn’t represent it? I think that it is human nature to protect the movement you have associated yourself with against attacks, as you are doing, but I think that moderates like you create a smokescreen for the radicals.

since many people who are feminist do not identify as such (hell, you probably qualify as a feminist yourself, because from what i gathered, you do support equal legal rights for men and women, despite your criticisms of the movement as a whole. im betting you dont call yourself a feminist, though),

For this argument to work, feminism as a definition needs to be clear-cut and simple as you make out. Someone is or isn’t an atheist. Someone either does or doesn’t have blond hair. However, if you consult the dictionary definition of feminism:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3. feminine character.

I think #3 is bullshit by the way, and by no means does the dictionary enshackle our thinking in a rigid way. But I agree with the first two definitions. Feminism is a political advocacy position and is not a simple Boolean representation of being. Imagine a similar thing being done on behalf of another advocacy group..

Alice meets Sue. Sue says to Alice "Hey, are you a member of PETA?" (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).
Alice replies "No".
Sue says "So, you hate animals then?".
Alice says "I love animals, I contribute to the RSPCA. I am simply unwilling to join an organisation with a such shady image".
Sue says "oh, that's just the leaders of PETA, the real PETA members don't support the terrorist"
Alice says "I don't understand how people who are not supported can become the leaders"
Sue says "Of course they can, they are a vocal minority".

From this, we can understand how silly it is to force people to be in a movement they don’t want to be in, or to assume de-facto that to not be in that movement is to be against the simplistic mission statement attributed to it. I know you didn’t make this claim, but I have people quite literally say to me that because I label myself as an ‘anti-feminist’ that that means I hate or am against women. It is a game played mainly with leftist victim “advocacy” movements.

but ill tell you how i, personally, think it happened: simply because the radical feminists are the only ones who think that there's work to be done in the field of women's rights that can be solved the way they're trying to solve it, so they're the ones doing the campaigning etc. basically speaking, the feminists who are part of the feminist movement are almost all radicals, simply because most of the sane feminists stopped actively campaingning when we achieved our aims in the law.

I entirely agree. Or, as I have been known to term it, a movement goes from legitimacy to depravity. When feminism was formed, there were legitimate battles to be waged, but at that point there were layers of persons in the movement. From those who reasonably saw injustices to women in society all the way to those who where perennially irresponsible and saw to blame society for their personal problems (a psychological artefact I see as being the cause of much of leftist advocacy). All types saw meaning in joining the movement, but as the causes were won, the more sensible element left to manage their own lives or didn’t join in the first place, stripping out the outer layer to leave the fetted, rotting core.

When a movement moves to depravity, it essentially becomes a grievance mining industry. Constantly looking under rocks to find the next ‘battle’, however pathetic it may be. Witness the black victimists in the US who spoke out against a ‘racist’ card (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/11/naacp-urges-hallmark-pull-racist-card-shelves/). Witness the sheer ridiculousness of the claim, these people will never leave the movement because they are too emotionally indebted to it, like the person who gains weight in perpetuity, yet stuffs another pie into their face, they eschew proper and healthy action for the easy carrot of blaming others for their problems. These people will never ever leave the movement and I would like to know how you think you can remove these radicals? Since the movement is their life but the reasonable moderates like you have lives of your own. How exactly are you going to mobilise to get rid of them? What’s your plan?

(pleasantries omitted)

Her original YouTube email to me:

well, the first point is difficult to prove with figures etc, but a conversation with a cross-section of people who identify as feminist would reveal that very few are radical, and most of the non-radicals think radicals are insane too. that wouldn't really be scientific, since many people who are feminist do not identify as such (hell, you probably qualify as a feminist yourself, because from what i gathered, you do support equal legal rights for men and women, despite your criticisms of the movement as a whole. im betting you dont call yourself a feminist, though), but it is a good start.

but ill tell you how i, personally, think it happened: simply because the radical feminists are the only ones who think that there's work to be done in the field of women's rights that can be solved the way they're trying to solve it, so they're the ones doing the campaigning etc. basically speaking, the feminists who are part of the feminist movement are almost all radicals, simply because most of the sane feminists stopped actively campaingning when we achieved our aims in the law.

the second point: i believe that there is still a fair amount of discrimination against women, but this is all sociological, not legal, and i feel that a large part of this is actually due to the radical feminists. because men and women aren't quite as equal as sane feminists would like, but it's not a legal problem, and its almost never because of men being sexist. no, its because, to get our comparative freedom truly accepted would require all men to respect us, not necessarily all of us as equals, but that we CAN be equal to them. this might be difficult for me to explain, but ill still try: sociological equality, to me, is not "no-one is better at anything than anyone else", as the more collectivist radicals seem to believe, (or "all woman are better at everything than all men: they're all useless sexist chauvanist pigs who need to be wiped off the face of the earth!!!!!", as the REALLY misandrist radicals would have it), but "some women are equal to or better than some men at things considered un-feminine, and vice-versa: men can beat some girls at girl stuff, without it being either a big deal or a requirement." this hasn't happened yet: it's sometimes a big deal, but it's usually a requirement, with compaines being required to hire a certain amount of women to prove that they're not being sexist, regardless of whether or not they're the most qualified (and if they ARE the most qualified, no-one will believe it: after all, the company in question HAS to hire (x) number of women, so who's to say the very qualified female employee who loves her job and works very dilligently want hired to meet the company woman quota? she'll lose a lot of respect for that, and it isnt in any way her fault.)

and about the big deal? when someone becomes the first woman to do something, everyone makes a huge fuss about it, but to me this comes across as patronising, people essentially going "awwww, clever girl! you got to be president of [insert country/company/organisation name here] all by yourself!!! that's so sweet! coochie coo!!". and lastly, a crucial component of making sociological equality work is respect. women have to respect men, men have to respect women. and what radical feminists are doing is a barrier to all three: they lead the patronising when a woman achieves anything, pressure from them is part of what makes the woman quotas mandatory, and they very rarely show respect for men (yes, when a man holds the door open for you, scream at him and tell him he's a sexist pig. that will REALLY improve his opinion of women. *rolls eyes, sighs dejectedly*). and the lack of respect for men can generate misaimed anger towards all feminists at best (*cough* you *cough*) and outright misogyny at worst.
so what do i feel needs to be done in terms of women's rights? get rid of the radicals! theyre doing more harm to women's rights by accident than someone could ever do on purpose! >_<

and once that's done, and the sane feminists are assembled, i feel our efforts could be better focused elsewhere: there are still parts of the world where women have basically no rights, after all, and that would be a much better campaign to fight than the one the radicals seem to be fighting aginst anyone with a penis right now –_-.

Evidence of other bubble universes

ArgusEyes — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:01:32 GMT

I’ve always been skeptical of the bubble universe hypothesis. Via PhysOrg.com, is a story about scientists who have purported to have visualised data that shows the existence of bubble universes. Essentially, irregular patterns in the background radiation are being hypothesised as other universes ‘bumping’ into ours and creating these patterns. It sounds a little loose to me, perhaps some other natural process is causing these patterns but is certainly an interesting idea.

In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

The authors of the scientific paper express a good level of skepticism as well. A good sign.

Still, the scientists acknowledge that it is rather easy to find a variety of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB. The researchers emphasize that more work is needed to confirm this claim, which could come in short time from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution three times better than that of WMAP (where the current data comes from), as well as an order of magnitude greater sensitivity. Nevertheless, they hope that the search for bubble collisions could provide some insight into the history of our universe, whether or not the collisions turn out to be real.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

All very fascinating. Here’s to further discovery in this particular area.

Ricky Gervais on Atheism

ArgusEyes — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:33:47 GMT

If you’ve seen Ricky Gervais’s stand up shows, then you’ll get a vibe for what his opinions are on atheism. He pens a piece in the Wall Street Journal blog entitled ‘A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist’. It stands, not as a deep conversation on atheism, but as a good summary and introduction to the topic for a person who might not know much about it. Highlights.

Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe,” this is not as effective as medicine. Again you can say, “It works for me,” but so do placebos. My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Scenes from New Zealand

ArgusEyes — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:24:00 GMT

This is the country I'm trying to move to permanently. There are really some spectacular views out here.

Water & Rocks, New Zealand from Metron on Vimeo.

Awesome! ‘Hate Bounces’ essay-video translated into Spanish

ArgusEyes — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:53:14 GMT

A YouTube user by the handle of ‘comeranas100’ has translated my video essay ‘Hate Bounces: How man hating and man bashing harms women’ into Spanish!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6shxTtssO4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4yBAA71Axk&feature=watch_response

Irwin Redlener on surviving a nuclear attack

ArgusEyes — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:20:41 GMT

Almost as a counter-point to “a no-nuke world”, is this video from Irwin Redlener. I recommend you watch.

Redlener makes the very good point that the problem of nuclear weapons has shifted in scope. Far from a mutually assured destructive all-out war of the cold variety, what we have to worry about now is rogue states with a handful of weapons or terrorist groups setting off a nuclear device in a major city.

The argument presented is good enough to make make me change my stance on nuclear. I still agree that a nuclear free world is a bad idea. To eliminate nukes in their entirety will mean that we will more easily be helpless in the hands of rogue states like North Korea. However, a massive arsenal of nuclear materiel increases the likelihood that some of that material may be appropriated for terrorist purposes. A healthy stockpile of weapons should be maintained with maximum security, and political plans should be made with other nations with stockpiles to lessen those stockpiles and keep a better watch over what is left.

Christmas Wars: The battle of the fundamentalists

ArgusEyes — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:04:16 GMT

I hate this sign. First off, I don’t understand the need to spew your message over others in the form of advertising. I don’t watch TV mainly because of the advertising, I don’t accept the invitations to have advertising on my YouTube channel. That said, what I don’t like about it is the bold-faced assertion that people who are looking upon this somehow know that Christmas is a myth. This is as close to calling them a liar that you can get without actually saying it. No, they don’t know it’s a myth, they sincerely believe in it.

There is type of person, or maybe a type of thinking that we all go through but maybe grow out of. This mentality leads one to believe a set of things for various reasons and to assume that when someone disagrees with them, then it because that is like they are, and has also come to the same conclusions on life but acts against them due to personal flaws such as greed, envy, etc.

In essence, it is an example of projection. The person thinks that all people must think like they do, that they have identified right and must have taken active measures to move from it to wrong. The projection comes from the projection of the life steps that the projector has gone through onto the person they disagree with. However in reality, we all have had different life experiences that inform the decisions we have made, we also have differing levels of wisdom which is the most important of all. What is important to know, is that we generally all believe the things we say we believe. A person who denies this, or acts like he denies this, is so foolish in his understanding of the human animal that he can almost be written out of serious consideration altogether.

P.Z. Myers is one such person. My favourite smart fool on the entire web. In a post entitled “Get over yourselves, timid atheists”, he castigates an author of a Jezebel post who criticises the advert. So he is in favour of the advert, bowl me over. So when a direct mirror image of the advert appears, an advert which says “You Know It's Real: This Season Celebrate Jesus” appears. Then a consistent person, he has this to say:

The pro-superstition sign says, "You Know It's Real: This Season Celebrate Jesus". Isn't that sweet? It's just like the religious side to proclaim a falsehood. Anyway, they're welcome to buy the ad space. The real winners here are the commercial enterprises marketing billboards and selling, selling, selling…and when you get right down to it, isn't that what Christmas is really all about?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/the_war_on_christmas_escalates.php

Everyone can see a hypocrite except the hypocrite himself. Everyone can see a fundamentalist except the fundamentalist himself. If it is a falsehood to say we know it is real then it is just as much of a falsehood to say we know it is false. Atheists like Myers scoff at the “fundamentalist atheist” claim but they don’t know what it means. It’s in reference to tactics and modes of thinking that one undertakes as a part of a group. As much as Myers may hate Bill Donohue, they are peas in a pod.

Why I left Britain

ArgusEyes — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:26:06 GMT

Girl arrested for allegedly burning Qur'an

A 15-year-old girl has been arrested in the West Midlands on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after allegedly burning an English-language version of the Qur'an – and then posting video footage of the act on Facebook.

The teenager, from Sandwell, in the Birmingham area, was filmed on her school premises burning the book. Police have confirmed the incident was reported to the school and the video has since been removed from the social networking site.

A 14-year-old boy was arrested on Tuesday on suspicion of making threats on Facebook. Both teenagers have been released on police bail.

The incident comes just two and a half months after six people were arrested after filming themselves dousing a Qur'an with fuel and setting it ablaze behind a pub in Tyneside.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/25/girl-arrested-allegedly-burning-quran

First off. They all sound like thoroughly nasty people. Such displays are obvious provocations and emotional outbursts. Can’t think or speak you ideas? Burn a book, burn those rock CDs, gather in groups and scream. Humans love the ritualistic nature of such things. However, the ever quickening decline of Britain is quite a spectacle. Such brazen disrespect for free thought! Such foolishness!

Think about what a term “incitement of religious hated” actually means. Think about the spine-tingling totalitarianism of the statement.

First off, you don't need to actually "incite" anything, as the article made no mention of any riots or violence that resulted from the actions of the individuals mentioned in the piece.

Secondly, think about the meaning of the term. I, as an individual am culpable for actions that incite others?! What a terrible depart from the spirit of western law where individuals are largely responsible for their own actions. Also, given my previous point, there is not incitement needed, all that is needed is offensive statements.

They're actually a Politically Correct blasphemy laws.

Are we to think that a person who insults Christianity (aka the classical religion of the culture) would face the same fate? Maybe you can find me some token cases where this has happened but I cannot believe that this is for any other purpose than for protecting the correct groups.

Take this:

Plans to make inciting hatred against gay people a crime have received a mixed response from church groups.

The plans were announced this week by Justice Secretary Jack Straw. The law would cover gay, lesbian and bisexual people and may be extended to cover disabled and transgender people.

Mr Straw said it was time for the law to recognise society was "appalled by hatred and invective" directed at people because of their sexuality.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5888

Gays, lesbians, bi's, Muslims. A veritable PC grab bag.

We are ruled over by evil despots and cowards, slaves to their despicable dogmas, born of foolishness and ideology. I hope to never go back.

A no-nuke world

ArgusEyes — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 00:14:17 GMT

I’ve not made my case on nuclear weapons and disarmament. However, when I see a case made well, which says what I want to say pretty well then I will post it. A common favourite here (much to the chagrin of some readers) is Charles Krauthammer. First, a good quote:

The reason is obvious. The problem is never the weapon; it is the nature of the regime controlling the weapon. That's why no one stays up nights worrying about British nukes, while everyone worries about Iranian nukes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112502232.html

In the Orwellian dictum, that writing must be like a pane of glass – clear. This statement sums up the flaw in much of leftist thought. The cause of bad diet is that there is no health food store nearby. The cause of violence is the presence of weapons. The human component is almost always ignored. It’s a childish and foolish way of looking at the world – almost a yearning to have all problems be so simple in nature as to be solved by their best wishes and prattling. Eliminating nuclear weapons is another mindless card in the repertoire of the left:

President Obama insists that New START is important as a step toward his dream of a nuclear-free world. Where does one begin? A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare. We voluntarily disarm while the world's rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret. Just last week we found out about a hidden, unknown, highly advanced North Korean uranium enrichment facility. An ostensibly nuclear-free world would place these weapons in the hands of radical regimes that would not hesitate to use them - against a civilized world that would have given up its deterrent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112502232.html

Razor is awesome

ArgusEyes — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:17:48 GMT

I don’t make many posts about technology, that’s not my internet persona. However, I’ve been having fun with the RC release of MVC 3 with the razor view engine. It’s pretty good, good enough to make me recommend it.

I’m a lover of MVC in general, I started off my career in webforms which I thought were okay at the time but looking back, they really were awful. The MVC design pattern clicked instantly with me. One downside was the ancient ASP server tag syntax. ascx pages peppered with <%= %> could very quickly become unreadable. Razor is a new view engine with MVC which uses @ symbols to achieve this. For example, to insert a variable in a page you simply use @varName instead of <%= varName %>. Much better!

You can also use @* *@ for comments and @{ } for code blocks. Even better still!

There’s a bunch more, head over to ScottGu’s blog to get more info and a downloadable.

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/11/09/announcing-the-asp-net-mvc-3-release-candidate.aspx

Big Picture: National Geographic's Photography Contest 2010

ArgusEyes — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:13:46 GMT

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/11/national_geographics_photograp.html

Michael Egnor moves the goalposts. Predictable

ArgusEyes — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:12:29 GMT

In my post “Michael Egnor has questions for atheists”, I detailed Michael Egnor’s 8 questions for atheists. He has responded.. To P.Z. Myers. Which is really what he wanted to do in the first place. There is only one part to his reply that I am interested in.

1) Why is there anything?
Myers: Nothing is unstable.
Me: "Nothing" is not unstable. Nothing is not stable. Nothing is not metastable, nor hypostable, nor quasi-stable. Nothing is nothing. Nothing has no properties. "Nothing is unstable" is gibberish. Hence its central place in New Atheist atheology.
If by "nothing" Myers is referring to the emergence of matter by quantum fluctuations (today's trendy New Atheist evasion of theism), I observe that a quantum field isn't "nothing." A quantum field is very much something, in need of explanation. A quantum field gives rise to particles, not to itself. You have to explain the existence of the quantum field. Nice try.
The question "why is there anything" is fundamental. The classical theist answer is that God's essence is His existence, and He is the ground of existence. Note that God (as understood classically) does not need explanation or cause. The uncaused nature of God is demonstrated, not stipulated, by classical theism (see Aristotle's Prime Mover argument and Aquinas' First, Second, and Third Ways). Furthermore, the Prime Mover argument (Aquinas' First Way) demonstrates that God's existence is necessary even if the universe was eternal and had no beginning; His existence is necessary for existence of the universe at every moment.
New Atheists don't understand the question, don't understand the terminology, and don't understand their own rudimentary logical contradictions. New Atheist ignorance doesn't mean that classical theism is true; it merely means that New Atheism has nothing to say. But I sort of suspected that.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/if_nature_abhorred_a_vacuum_ne039891.html

Michael Egnor wants us atheists to explain something that doesn’t exist. If the quantum field is not nothing then there is no place in the universe that contains nothing. In short, “nothing” does not exist.

This response also highlights why responding to dogmatists is a pointless task..

You have to explain the existence of the quantum field. Nice try.

If a theist asks you anything then you will immediately get this kind of reply. Also, note the iron-clad assurance that this answer cannot be found. All theism boils down to this:

Infinite recursion to an unknown source.
Cause is magic.
Substantive details about the magic is the culturally taught/assumed religion for the person making the argument.

All the waffling and ink of the sophisticated theists rest on these foundations, as someone who couldn’t be anything other than an atheist. I cannot relate nor understand this line of thinking. That we do not know everything is not a fear to me. It does not niggle me, and I cannot understand how a theist can rest back on his or her laurels and pretend like they have the answer to these questions. How can they do it?

They ask “why this” and “why that” as if they have the answer. They don’t. However, it is an impossibility for them to admit this and here’s why:

The concept of god is a natural cognitive outcome of the endless “why” line of thinking. The thinking, and by extension, human nature, comes first and the manmade construct of god comes out of it.

It is in the nature of man to believe in Gods, therefore Atheists are the abnormal ones in that they are okay with not knowing. Believers don’t really “know” anything but they have to believe that they do otherwise there is no dissonance relief to the burning desire to substitute an answer for every question.

Great Migrations

ArgusEyes — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:00:13 GMT

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/11/great_migrations.html

NYT: For Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery Way Out

ArgusEyes — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:44:31 GMT

It is shameful here to admit to troubles at home, and mental illness often goes undiagnosed or untreated. Ms. Zada, the hospital staff said, probably suffered from depression. The choices for Afghan women are extraordinarily restricted: Their family is their fate. There is little chance for education, little choice about whom a woman marries, no choice at all about her role in her own house. Her primary job is to serve her husband’s family. Outside that world, she is an outcast.

"If you run away from home, you may be raped or put in jail and then sent home and then what will happen to you?" asked Rachel Reid, a researcher for Human Rights Watch who tracks violence against women.

Returned runaways are often shot or stabbed in honor killings because the families fear they have spent time unchaperoned with a man. Women and girls are still stoned to death. Those who burn themselves but survive are often relegated to grinding Cinderella existences while their husbands marry other, untainted women.

"Violence in the lives of Afghanistan’s women comes from everywhere: from her father or brother, from her husband, from her father-in-law, from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law," said Dr. Shafiqa Eanin, a plastic surgeon at the burn hospital, which usually has at least 10 female self-immolation cases at any one time.

The most sinister burn cases are actually homicides masquerading as suicides, said doctors, nurses and human rights workers.

"We have two women here right now who were burned by their mothers-in-law and husbands," said Dr. Arif Jalali, the hospital’s senior surgeon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/world/asia/08burn.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

In which we betray our gender

ArgusEyes — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:19:46 GMT

A comic for those who want some really piercing gender analysis.

The first part: http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444

The follow-up: http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1457

French thugs put France to flame for their own selfish greed

ArgusEyes — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:43:11 GMT

It is an often heard yard that capitalist societies breed “consumerist” wealth-obsessed people, and whilst this may be true in part it misses a blaringly important point, that a socialist-like welfare state can breed a horrible populace of decedent, entitled, brattish spoiled ingrates.

France. In response to a proposal for a mere two year increase in the age of retirement, the masses have put the country on shutdown, blocking access to fuel plants and striking left, right and center. For two years.

This is not an unusual occurrence, the situation occurred previously in Greece with riots in response to government cuts. If I were to ask these thugs one thing it would be this.

“What primary metric is it my which retirement ages are set”

Unclear? What most important factor determines the setting of a retirement age? Put it this way, would the retirement age be 60 in a society where the average life expectancy was 65? Would the retirement age be 60 in a country where the life expectancy was 120? There is no thought for tomorrow in the empty craniums of these entitled children, only an emotional reaction that they may get less. That they may have something put on them. Do they think who will be the ones supporting the collapsing system?

Dennis Prager has a phrase; “The bigger the government the smaller the people”. It is a wonderful phrase as it means that not only do the people less agency and so are smaller in the amount of control they have over their lives, but they are less worthy human beings because the large state makes people worse.

The large state makes people worse.

Krauthammer has written on this:

Moreover, apart from ideology is empirical reality. Even as we speak, the social-democratic model Obama is openly and boldly trying to move America toward is unraveling in Europe. It's not just the real prospect of financial collapse in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, with even the relatively more stable major countries in severe distress. It is the visible moral collapse of a system that, after two generations of increasing cradle-to-grave infantilization, turns millions of citizens into the streets of France in furious and often violent protest over what? Over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62!

Having seen this display of what can only be called decadence, Obama's perfectly wired electorate says no, not us, not here. The peasants have seen the future -- Greece and France -- and concluded that it does not work. Hence their opposition to Obama's proudly transformational New Foundation agenda. Their logic is impeccable: Only the most blinkered intellectual could be attempting to introduce social democracy to America precisely when the world's foremost exemplar of that model -- Europe -- is in chaotic meltdown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102104856.html

Theodore Dalrymple has written on this:

The lycéens’ demonstrations against the increase in the retirement age seemed to me something of a failure of the Cartesian critical spirit on which the French pride themselves. (Philosophy is still taught to French pupils, not English ones, who are probably by now unreachable and unteachable.) Whose labor, after all, do these lycéens imagine will pay for all of the unfunded pension obligations of the French state, as pensioners live longer and longer? Where do they imagine the money will come from?

Of course, it’s possible that they feel such solidarity with the elderly that they are eager to labor for their ease and comfort, youth being supposedly the idealistic period of life. But somehow I doubt that such idealism is the explanation. What probably accounts for the strikes is a mixture of combativeness—the prejudice that being against something is inherently superior, morally speaking, to being for it—and a desire for a day off from school.

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon1019td.html

The big picture has a photo series on this:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/10/france_on_strike.html

Small Worlds

ArgusEyes — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:35:21 GMT

Small worlds http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/10/small_worlds.html

Michael Egnor has questions for atheists

ArgusEyes — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:13:24 GMT

So Michael Egnor writes a piece over at Evolution News and Views entitled “What Do New Atheists Actually Believe?”. He has some questions to ask atheists and he wants us to answer. By the way, the website does not have commenting and I can find no email address for Michael Egnor after a few minutes of googling so one has to wonder just how much he wants our answers but I’ll give you my answers Michael.

1) Why is there anything?

Because “nothing” is inherently unstable. The universe doesn’t seem to like “nothing”. Even the most featureless spot of empty space is a bubbling cosmic cauldron of particles coming into existence and leaving existence. However, if I answered “gravity” to a question of “why do things fall”, then I would probably get a retort of “why is there gravity”. I am going to head this inevitable line of questioning off at the pass Dr. Egnor. I do not have the explanation for why nothing is unstable we are supremely ignorant of the workings of the universe. I recognise this ignorance for what it is and acknowledge it, you cling to the ignorance and use it to justify your magical explanation. The religious always like to pretend that they have the answer to the why. They don’t.

2) What caused the Universe?

Quantum fluctuations are the best current provisional explanation for the origin of matter, leading to the expansion of the universe. I have no doubt that we will laugh at this theory in a hundred years time but it is the only current example of matter coming from nothing. There are no other examples of matter coming from nothing.

3) Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?

No idea. See the answer to question one sans the scientific explanation at the beginning.

4) Of the Four Causes in nature proposed by Aristotle (material, formal, efficient, and final), which of them are real? Do final causes exist?

Pass. I do not have the time to study Aristotle at the moment.

5) Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?

I don’t know where this is going. The question seems to be “why does each person have their own experience of the world”? Because our minds differ. No two minds are exactly the same and are also affected by our environment, this leads to differing interpretations of the world. Is this not obvious?

6) Why is the human mind intentional, in the technical philosophical sense of aboutness, which is the referral to something besides itself? How can mental states be about something?

Philosophical onanism. As a programmer and scientist I feel a special kind of loathing towards meaningless garbage like this. What the hell is he talking about? Am I the stupid one? Since I cannot answer the question, let me rant about philosophers and academics. Basically, philosophers should get honest jobs such as hamburger cook. I’ve always noticed trends in similar between theists and philosophers the urge to capitalise on not knowing, to spread doubt and confusion so that we cannot assuredly define terms and come to conclusions about things. The aim is the same; to satiate the desire in the human being philosophising to see wonder and mysticism in life. Name for me the essential difference between this definition of Metaphysical solipsism and religion:

Metaphysical solipsism is the "strongest" variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of idealism, the metaphysical solipsist maintains that he is the whole of reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no independent existence. Few, if any, have taken this position beyond hypothetical discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Bollocks.

About academics. There is an irritating trend in many academics to use language which is as obtuse as possible, perhaps in the way that a programmer might obfuscate code in order to increase job security. Academics like I have descried like the sociologist drummer I knew at university, would inevitably be concatenating prepared phrases like “post-modern”, “hetero-normatively”, etc. I heard a great academic blurb on the Dennis Prager show from David Horowitz’s book “one party classroom”. I can’t find it on the web so I will instead point you all to George Orwell’s best essay “politics and the English language”

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry -- when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech -- it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump. By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot -- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking. Look again at the examples I gave at the beginning of this essay. Professor Laski (1) uses five negatives in fifty three words. One of these is superfluous, making nonsense of the whole passage, and in addition there is the slip -- alien for akin -- making further nonsense, and several avoidable pieces of clumsiness which increase the general vagueness. Professor Hogben (2) plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means; (3), if one takes an uncharitable attitude towards it, is simply meaningless: probably one could work out its intended meaning by reading the whole of the article in which it occurs. In (4), the writer knows more or less what he wants to say, but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea leaves blocking a sink. In (5), words and meaning have almost parted company. People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning -- they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another -- but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Orwell states that good writing is like a window. Transparent.

7) Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)

Moral law is an artefact of nature. We observer many aspects of our moral behaviour in our animal cousins such as the great apes. They have many of the same social conventions as we do and they have moral behaviour. The verdict is in; that we evolved from apelike ancestors so we inherit the moral systems too. Religions come in and create rules that encapsulate the morality we already had as well as introducing some but wherever you look you will see morality dependent upon the context in which you are viewing it. Take the variety of customs of human society from cannibalism to sepuku. These are things that we would abhor in the context of western societies and yet they exist in other societies. Man and woman is a mixture of nature and nurture.

The religious like to state that the word of God is absolute. But that is a claim that is 180 degrees from reality. If the word of God is absolute then why do we have so many different denominations of Christianity? Why the differing degrees of liberality in a religious worshipper? When you look at the world you see differing moral systems all over the place. When you squint, and lower the resolution at which you look at the world, then you see broad similarities, but morality is a complex equation.

8) Why is there evil?

Evil, like religion, is an outcome of human psychology which in turn is an outcome of our physical brain structure from our physical development. The discussion of why humans are the way they are is so large that I don’t know if I can summarise it here. Hatred of the other, the lack of human understanding, the imposition of our views on others, the restriction of liberty. Let alone that what is evil differs from one person to the next. I think a major cause of human evil is the victim complex, when people think of themselves as victims then they can do tremendously evil things because they have convinced that they are entitled to do so. Take a situation in which evil has occurred and you can find psychological explanations for it. No magic is required.

Commenting is back on

ArgusEyes — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:10:46 GMT

Hi all. I have turned commenting back on now, let’s hope that it can stand up to the ingenuity of the unscrupulous.

Enough

ArgusEyes — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:45:31 GMT

This blog has been the victim of an ever increasing attack of spammers who have trampled over my property and cost me my time, at a time where I can’t spare the time. So they win, for now.

I have turned off all comment functionality until I have the spare time. Whereupon I shall be spending that spare time not sitting on the beach or motor-biking around the mountains of New Zealand, but rather sitting in my apartment writing code to defeat evil scum. If you have something to say then send me an email.

People suck. Later.

Dan Abrams to write a bigoted supremacist book

ArgusEyes — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:39:14 GMT

Msnbc legal eagle Dan Abrams is making the case for women, literally. He’s inked a six-figure deal with Abrams Books (no relation) to chronicle ways women are superior to men. In “Man Down,” he’ll present studies, polls and other “evidence” to prove that women actually best the boys in typically male areas like gambling and enduring pain, and even make better hedge-fund managers and cops. Abrams isn’t basing this on his own studies of gorgeous actresses: “If I had any unique insight into women, I would be married. I don’t. This is a fun book written from the perspective of a lawyer making a case. A lot of people will be surprised by what we found.” It’s due around Mother’s Day next year.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/dan-abrams-to-write-book-proving-that-women-are-better-than-men-yes-really/

Mother’s day eh? Isn’t that nice. Maybe I can pick up a copy for my mum to help illustrate to her how her son is a worthless piece of shit. Here’s my view on supremacy.

Whilst it is an unavoidable fact that men are better than women at some tasks and women are better than men at some tasks, it seems like a silly endeavour to state that “X is superior, in a general and absolute way, to Y”. Even if you could do it, why do it? Why upset people and sow the seeds of hatred and angst. If women make superior nurses, why jump about shouting “aha – in your face!” It’s obnoxious and counterproductive. Here’s my view on supremacists

Supremacists are not secure, decent people. A person to whom it is important to argue for the supremacy of whites, blacks, men, women, gays, straights, Muslims or whatever, is not arguing for that groups as much as they are arguing for themselves. Feminists or blacklists or many other types of activists are of the same template but with the target stripped out and replaced by something else. The target of the supremacist is not an earned skill such as chess playing proficiency, or interest in Chaucer. Rather, it is a chance physical attribute that took no effort to assume. A black is a black and a female is a female, they do not earn these identities but the identity is the only thing they have to cling to. Let’s refer to this as the identity complex. After many years of talking to feminists, I can safely generalise that the more dedicated a woman is to feminism (let’s put the issue of male feminists aside for now) the less impressive she was as person to me. The nice kinds of feminists who email to take me to task have a passing interest in the subject. They are not on the forefront of the activist wing of the feminist movement and I normally ask them where they fit into things.

The identity complex I described the last paragraph is inevitably going to be tied to the victim complex. Someone send me a great quote about victims:

"The victim stance is a powerful one: The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy. "

http://www.zurinstitute.com/victim_psychology.html

Whilst it may not make sense to think that a person is happy to be unhappy (as in, someone seeks to be a victim which makes them unhappy), but humans are not rational beings and there is power in victimhood. In Theodore Dalrymple’s book “Life at the bottom”. Dalrymple recounts many tales of how criminals in the prison where he had worked would constantly blame others for their actions (IE “it wasn’t my fault I stole the VCR, they should have locked their window”). To not be a victim is to stand face-to-face with one’s own flaws. It requires a savage degree of self honesty to say “I was wrong”. Humans generally do not do this because of cognitive dissonance, any ideas that challenge the things we hold to be emotionally important (I am worthwhile / I am honest / I am good) get filtered by the brain and rationalised before they even get to our conscious mind.

In short, identity complex and victim complex go hand in hand because of the worthlessness of the people who assume them. It takes guts to say “I am unintelligent” and “I have no skill”. It is human nature to blame our flaws on others. The identity victim (that’s it – I am coining that phrase from now on) reaches to what they can, the problem is because I am a woman and women are oppressed, or that I am black. Winners do not whine, they achieve.

That covers supremacists, but what about Mr. Abrams? He obviously isn’t acting on behalf of his own sex here, he’s acting against it. I think he is motivated by other things. Number one is political correctness. PC thought is the “appropriate” way to think in our modern western societies. Because it has successfully garnered the image of being “compassion” to oppressed groups. These oppressed groups are, of course, fronted by people with the identity victim complex. Dan is being very correct in the spirit of the times to be writing a book like this. As can be seen from the questions in the article like “Where are you in terms of writing the book? Is it done?”. This might be the kind of question you ask a policy wonk but it is not what you ask a bigot writing a work of supremacy. PC tells all of us that this how you treat people acting in favour of a victim group but not one in favour of an oppressor group.

It is also possible that Abrams may be seeking affirmation from women. This is an affliction of males to a greater degree than for women because men do more work to earn women approval and attention. To be honest, I have psycho-analysed enough for one day. I’ll end with this. We live in a society of many different types of people. And we do this by getting along. People like Mr. Abrams make the world worse by picking at scabs and setting man against woman. There are better endeavours in life to which one can dedicate oneself, greatening anger is not one of them.

A festering pile of buggerc***s

ArgusEyes — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:25:30 GMT

Some of you may have noticed that this blog has effectively been invaded by spammers. It has been targeted by some merchandising bots and has festooned daily with posts linking to essay writing services and handbag stores.

I hate these people. To mistreat other people’s space by spamming it with their garbage really gets my goat. I now have to update the software for the blog to catch these wankers; probably by using a captcha or some such method that is going to annoy the rest of you.

Earthquake!

ArgusEyes — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:47:36 GMT

I was woken up this morning by some fairly substantial shaking. I have been in only one earthquake before, a minor shake in the UK where a man’s leg was injured by a falling chimney. This was slightly different. The shaking increased in intensity and lasted for what felt like a long time (thirty seconds I think – time is hard to gauge when you’ve just been woken up in a situation like that). I could hear the sounds of bottles and objects falling over, my thoughts were “woah – this is awesome!” followed by “I hope this doesn’t get more serious” to, afterwards, “Bugger, the aftermath of this is probably going to mess up my life for a time”.

There were a lot of aftershocks and I sat back in bed and soaked them in. The earth grumbled away with rumbles and shakes, almost like it was threatening to start back up again. I can still feel them now but they are quite rare.

I am living near Lyttelton, which is on the Banks Peninsula to the East of Christchurch, separated by mountains. I don’t know how much those mountains might have absorbed or shielded the quake but I imagine I got off pretty easy. No doubt I shall hear numerous stories in work on Monday.

On the plus side, right after the quake, the power was out. I was able to step outside my door and see the milky way on a clear night – completely unperturbed by light pollution; it was beautiful.

A 7.0-magnitude earthquake has struck off New Zealand's South Island, the US Geological Survey has said.

The epicentre was 55km (35 miles) north-west of Christchurch, at a depth of 12 km (7.5 miles), it added.

Police said there had been widespread damage to buildings and roads as well as power cuts. Two men were seriously injured by falling masonry and glass.

A state of emergency was later declared in Christchurch, New Zealand's second largest city with a 386,000 population.
Continue reading the main story
end of the so-called Pacific Ring of Fire, and above an area of the Earth's crust where the Pacific Plate converges with the Indo-Australian Plate.

The country experiences more than 14,000 earthquakes a year, of which only around 20 have a magnitude in excess of 5.0.

The last fatal earthquake was in 1968, when a 7.1-magnitude tremor killed three people on the South Island's western coast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11183685

What? “Mosque at ground zero”.. Never heard

ArgusEyes — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:53:16 GMT

Ho hum. I’ve been hearing about this so goddamn long that maybe some here may be wondering what my opinion is on this..

*Drumroll please*

I don’t know.

That’s it. I don’t know. On an issue like this I can see both sides clearly and I also sympathise with both sides. On one side (generally leftward) they make an argument of freedom of religion, the rule of law and equality. On the other side (generally rightward) they make an argument of sensitivity in light of a very special case as well as the motivations of unity under such an act as the proposed mosque/Islamic centre.

Here’s the thing. I can see the good points in each so I don’t know. If a gun were to be held to my head at this very moment, I would probably go with the left position.

What interests me about this foofaraw is not the issue itself so much as it’s the reaction of the political left to those they disagree with. In essence, it is the same old story. It’s bigotry, pure and simple. The resounding chorus from the left is that xenophobia and bigotry is the only possible reasons for this. It’s hard to retell the multiple accounts I have heard but it reminds me of the tea party reactions, all the sources I read or listened to said the same thing. Racism.

Krauthammer on this:

Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html

Here are some unbelievable new stories

ArgusEyes — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:16:53 GMT

I know I haven’t posted in a while (immigrating to another country is hard). So here are some funny and unbelievable news stories to keep you all amused.

Polish man finds bullet in head five years after party

A Polish man living in Germany spent five years with a bullet in the back of his head having forgotten he was shot because he was drunk when it happened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11078116

German student attacks Hell's Angels with puppy

(Reuters) - A German student created a major traffic jam in Bavaria after making a rude gesture at a group of Hell's Angels motorcycle gang members, hurling a puppy at them and then escaping on a stolen bulldozer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65E39Q20100615

Thank you and good night!

Sports fan politics - “Refudiate”

ArgusEyes — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:07:50 GMT

What is sports fan politics? It’s where you pretend to care about something that you wouldn’t care about if someone from a political party you support had said/done it. I got the term from Ed Brayton on this podcast which deals with the book “mistakes were made” (which is excellent and should be read by all).

Here is a good example of sports fan politics:

Gathered from our referrers page, here are some reactions to Sarah Palin’s now-famous “refudiate” post on Twitter.

Many people (but by no means all) seem to be focusing on Palin’s neologism, and missing the real point — the bigotry and hatred her statements on the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” endorse.

…

Ben Smith: Sunday reading: Refudiate

The New Yorker: Meme Watch: ShakesPalin

The Atlantic Wire: Palin Demands Muslims ‘Refudiate’ NYC Mosque, Sparking Criticism, Mockery

Language Log: Refudiate?

Bob Cesca: Refudiate

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36778_Refudiation_Round-Up

“Refudiate” seems to be a combination of “refute” and “repudiate”. It seems to be the kind of brain fart that I would make on a daily, nay, hourly basis.

I’ve made silly typos and I’ve garbled words. In my “problems with feminism” video I pronounce Simone de Beauvoir’s last name as “boo-vee-ey”. Oops.

It doesn’t matter. It’s inconsequential crap. If someone writes something that is basically incomprehensible then I can understand making a fuss about it. It’s like the people who say “you expect to take me seriously” when I make a typo in a blog post pr essay transcript. The idea that you discount the argument of a person based upon a mistaken work or typo is self evidently stupid as they will not do so when they see it in the writings of a person they like. It’s something that happens only when you don’t like the person or the ideas (and therefore the person) and the brain seeks to reduce dissonance by settling on whatever reason it can to dismiss those ideas or that person. This is a psychological theory of the mind known as “cognitive dissonance” and it' is a very important theory.

15 sexy scientists? Prepare to wring hands

ArgusEyes — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:11:38 GMT

One of the most things about male feminists is what and-wringing, cringing pussies they can be sometimes.

Here is a list, with photos, of 15 sexy scientists. It has a little excuse for some obvious bias in the choices:

…

The worst possible way to handle this is to search the internet for photos of women scientists and make superficial decisions about who the male eye would find sexy. There's a process of judgment that went on behind the scenes, where many women scientists had to have been rejected because they were insufficiently 'hot', and then many of the women dragged into the spotlight had their "scientist" qualifications completely ignored for their literally biological qualifications. It's a reiteration of the same inappropriate judgmental attitude that pretty much every woman scientist suffers through.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/i_have_been_objectified.php

Good grief. He’s complaining that not enough shrift is given to scientific qualifications for a list called “15 sexy scientists”. Read that title slowly again Myers.

Then there’s the usual yammering about “turning these women into objects” on the comment thread of the post he is referring to (and a lot of good rebuttals too). I can’t help but think that a lot of what these people don’t like about lists like this, is what amounts to a basic railing about the basic fact that looks are more important to women then they are to men. That’s like, get over it and stop being so offended by reality.

NASA to outreach to the Muslim world: Atheist/Skeptic blogs silent

ArgusEyes — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:12:09 GMT

This isn’t exactly new, a lot of you might already know about this story: Obama's New Approach to Joint Space Exploration (original story). Below is a quote from an MSNBC article.

Bolden raised eyebrows in the space community and outrage among conservative pundits by telling Al-Jazeera television recently President Barack Obama had instructed him to work for better outreach with the Muslim world.

He said Obama told him one of his top priorities was to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38212800/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Charles Krauthammer is scathing on this:

I didn’t touch the original story. However, what is noteworthy is that the skeptic/atheist blogs I most regularly visit haven’t mentioned this to my knowing. Take the two main ones on my start-up menu, pharyngula and badastronomy:

muslim nasa site:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

muslim nasa site:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

muslim nasa site:http://skepchick.org/blog/

muslim nasa site:http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/

If any of you know about something I’m missing then do let me know but it appears very much that political allegiances are getting in the way of objectivity.

Does truth matter?

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:08:00 GMT

In the ongoing tradition of replies that deserve their own blog post. This one is a follow-up to the “Ada Lovelace was not the first computer programmer” thread.

Emotion, to me, is my starting point; it is also an important element of the way I communicate.

..

I also think that truth is just about anything anybody else wants it to be. ‘Truth’ is a word that is available to me in sea of many other words.

This reminds me of when, discussing God with religious people, if a person says that god is a faith issue for them then there is no point arguing anymore because you have boiled it down the fundamental difference between that person’s view of the world and yours. This is similar to you and I.

Truth is subjective.. Your emotions are your guide.. That is a view I can neither understand nor condone.

Truth is not whatever we want it to be. I believe there is a standard of truth that transcends our emotions and perceptions. That is why I go through efforts to clarify what I am talking about, in this instance that the claims that Ada Lovelace was “the first programmer” are false. You don’t get to answer “yes” or “no” depending on whatever you feel you want to, there is only one answer. Whatever you want to define as a program, if you make the statement that Ada was the first to write it, then the fact that Babbage wrote it for her nullifies the idea that she was the first making the answer a “no”. Plain and simple. The question of whether Babbage was the first is separate, and “giving her the benefit of the doubt” is wishful delusion.

Living on emotions is a bad idea. Should the anti-Semite live on his or her hate? Does the racial lies they tell about Jews, which are truly believed by themselves, be the “starting point” for them? Do my protestations over the claim that that Jews slaughter non-Jews in order to use their blood for knead matzes for Passover [1] get legitimately pushed aside against claims that “emotions are my starting point” or does the truth matter?

The world is full of untruths; these are worse than lies because they are normally believed sincerely and thus are much more dangerous, the architect of untruth is emotion. Our societies are filled with victim ideologies like feminism and blackism which keep people in enshrined in a miasma of hateful emotion about how abused they are. This enables them to rationalise the evil their abuse of others. Emotional thinking is perhaps the cause of most of the evil in the world. Lesser versions of this effect cause people to raise other people like Ada Lovelace on a pedestal, the reason is to make themselves feel better, to satiate their own self worth by raising it for another person of the same group as they are, therefore raising themselves with it. It is not something that secure people do.

Your worldview is wrong. Truth is important and it is not whatever you want it to be.

Sources

[1] http://missingpeace.eu/en/articles/132-articles/11-salah-soltan-repeats-blood-libel-while-attending-a-conference-about-interfaith-and-coexistence

Jonah Goldberg: See You Next Tyranny Day!

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:26:46 GMT

Excellent article from Jonah Goldberg at National Review.

According to New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman in his mega-best-selling book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, China banned plastic bags a few years ago. “Bam! Just like that — 1.3 billion people, theoretically, will stop using thin plastic bags,” he gushed. “Millions of barrels of petroleum will be saved, and mountains of garbage avoided.”

China’s got us beat, suggests Friedman, because its leaders aren’t hung up on democracy, checks and balances, or any of the other dusty old impediments found in the American system. Friedman has proclaimed his envy for China’s authoritarian system countless times. It’s why he titled one of the chapters in his book “China for a Day.” The idea — he calls it his “fantasy” — is that if we could just be China for a day, the experts could impose by diktat what they cannot win through democratic debate.

…

Such arguments are as old as they are dangerous. And they are arrogant beyond description. People like Friedman automatically assume that their preferred policies are so obviously right, so objectively enlightened, that there’s no need to debate them or vote on them.

…

Such arrogance is dangerous. The literature on the unintended consequences of policies crafted by experts is at least as old as the field of economics. Frédéric Bastiat, the great 19th-century economist, noted all that separated the good economist from the bad is the ability to appreciate the possibility of the unforeseen. Nobel Prize–winning economist Friedrich Hayek demonstrated that healthy economies couldn’t be controlled by experts, because the experts will always have a “knowledge problem.” They can never know all of the variables and never fully predict how their theories will play out in reality.

This is Iran: Iranian Woman Sentenced To Stoning After Being Lashed

ArgusEyes — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:29:56 GMT

This is Iran:

Amnesty said she received flogging of 99 lashes as per her sentence but was subsequently accused of "adultery while being married" in September 2006 during the trial of a man accused of murdering her husband.

Mostafai said his client knew the man who "killed her husband and because she was at home when the murder took place, she was accused as accomplice."

"But after her kids pardoned her in the case of murder, she now stands accused of adultery with that man."

Mostafai added that such cases involving women in Iran arise due to difficulties in getting divorces with husbands despite "having troubled marriages."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsH_Nwq_L045KhDsWEhGeDExJ6_A

This is the UN:

Iran Wins Membership to the U.N Commission on the Status of Women

Women arrested and imprisoned for having suntans? Check. Women stoned to death for adultery? Check. Random persecution, detainment, violent arrest, and imprisonment of women's rights activists and mourning mothers? Check. Women blamed for causing earthquakes? Check. Use of makeup illegal because it makes women dishonorable? Check!

Sounds like the Islamic Republic of Iran is all set for membership to the U.N Commission on the Status of Women! Welcome, Iran, and thank you for helping to set the bar for the status of women around the world. It's exhilarating that the U.N and its member states have so clearly sent the message that women belong under the control of authoritarian governments, under the cover of dress codes and the watch of morality police, and in prison or the grave if they don't obey their male controllers.

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/iran_wins_membership_to_the_un_commission_on_the_status_of_women

This is stoning:

Stoning is typically a punishment for adultery, although it can also be use for cases of incest and other sexual or “moral” crimes. Typically, a stoning victim is first wrapped in cloth and buried up to the waist for men, or up to the chest for females. Then the crowd is to throw stones at the victim. However, it is very important that, “… no stone should be thrown that should kill with the first or second blow, or so small as a pebble to do no injury to the condemned.” (Hulagu's Web, 64) Stoning is a unique form of punishment in that there is no single executioner. The simplistic act of gathering the victim’s peers around him creates killers out of everyone.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Fact-to-Fiction:-The-Brutal-Truth-about-the-Practice-of-Stoning&id=11574

Any questions?

Carl Sagan: A Universe Not Made For Us

ArgusEyes — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:13:48 GMT

An amazing piece of writing.

You can help with an exciting new personal project

ArgusEyes — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:43:48 GMT

Hi all. I’ve not made a video in ages, that is pretty obvious. Apart from life disruptions, I have been working on a project that has been absorbing a lot of my time. I want my first return video to be about this project so please be patient.

You can help me with it. What issues would you include under the rubric of MRA / Anti-feminist? Obviously there would be paternity fraud, false rape allegations, circumcision, parental alienation, etc. The current list I have is listed below. If you can think of some other obvious issues that I’ve missed then please let me know. Also, of you have a different idea about the master-child categorisation then let me know about that too. I’ve been saying this for ages but I should be back soon.

LAW AND POLITICS

Anti male law proposals
Quotas for women
Positive discrimination
Different standards for men
Feminism and the left
Feminism and the right
Differences in sentencing for men
Conscription to the military

SOCIALISATION & RELIGION

Chivalry
Man bashing
Portrayal of men in the media
Portrayal of women in the media
The attempted socialisation of children
Matriarchal societies
Patriarchy societies
Treatment of men in history
Treatment of women in history
Abuse of women in religion
Women under Islam
Men and women under religion

EDUCATION

Feminist indoctrination
Anti-male discrimination
Positive discrimination
Quotas for women
Women's studies courses
Educational achievement gap
Difference in learning habits
Sex education

WORK

The wage gap
The glass ceiling
Sexual Harassment
Quotas for women
Workplace deaths
Retirement ages
Male female differences in employment decisions
Positive discrimination in the workplace

VIOLENCE AND HEALTH

False accusation of rape
Male victims of rape
Rape statistics and information
Domestic violence statistics and information
False accusation of domestic violence
Circumcision
Abortion
Pregnancy
Suicide rates
Circumcision
Life expectancy
Male female difference in health
Child abuse by females
PMS
Stress
Health spending

SEXUALITY

The case for pornography
The case against pornography
Sexuality and body image for women
Sexuality and body image for men
Male female difference in sexuality

FEMINISM AND FEMINIST ISSUES

The hatred of men
Feminist attitudes to men
Feminist theory and issues
Feminist history
Feminism and language change
Feminism in other cultures

RELATIONSHIPS AND FAMILY

Parental alienation information and statistics
False allegation of parental alienation
Divorce settlements
Alimony
Division of domestic duties
Domestic duties
Marriage strike
Paternity leave for women
Paternity leave for men
Paternity fraud
Choice for men
Child support
Right to parentage

SCIENCE

Biological Difference between the sexes
Psychological difference between the sexes
Male Psychology
Female Psychology
Behavioural differences between men and women
Assisted memory syndrome
Male biology
Female biology

Ada Lovelace was not the first computer programmer

ArgusEyes — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:57:18 GMT

I have received a response to my argument about Ada Lovelace being the “The most overrated figure in the history of computing” (first video result for Google searches of “ada lovelace” – booh yeah!"). This blog post is a counter-response.

---

A lot of your argument seems to revolve around making the case that Ada Lovelace (also known as Augusta Ada King) was a talented and intelligent woman. I agree on this, especially when you consider the limitations of her time.

However, none of this matters. All that matters is whether the massive accreditation that is given to her as the “first programmer” is true, and I contend that it is not. Your argument was essentially one of admiration, an admiration that a woman in a society that did not offer women the opportunities that ours does. I understand the sentiment but such emotion can also cloud one’s own judgement. When people become emotionally invested in an idea then they lose objectivity on it. Ada has been described as a “prophet” [1]. You can buy T-shirts entitled “Heroine: Ada Lovelace” [2]. One does not have to search very far to find articles describing with glee that the first programmer was a woman [3][4][5]. Frankly, I feel that the promotion of Ada Lovelace has more to do with political correctness that objective fact.

Some of the descriptions of Ada pass from “creative” to “egregious” take for example the following paragraph:

Computers have had a massive influence our lives over the last 60 years, but they were actually first invented nearly 200 years ago. And one of the pioneers was a female mathematician called Ada Lovelace, who created one of the first computer programs and understood something of the enormous potential of computers.

[6] http://plus.maths.org/issue34/features/ada/index.html

Ada Lovelace was in no way a pioneer. She made no great contributions to mathematics that I know of, her noteworthy accomplishment was a translation of a paper by Menabrea which included a program that she did not wrote, she did not participate in any way to the design of Charles Babbage’s computational machines and I would be sceptical as to whether Charles Babbage himself could be described as a pioneer. Charles Darwin was ahead of his time and his story is a heartbreaking tale of ambition against the mechanical limitations of the time. Babbage didn’t complete either of his machines (prototypes of the analytical engine exist), and it wasn’t until the twentieth century until the techniques of the time could create computers as we know them. We can admire Babbage’s achievements but he didn’t kick-start a revolution.

The main piece of evidence behind the “prophet” claim is her writings that computers may be used for things such as composing music and graphics in the future. This is indeed prescient and impressive when compared to Babbage’s own small minded vision of his machines being used for mathematics only. Ada Lovelace provided encouragement to Babbage and realised the potential of his machines right away, but what of the main claim?

Lord Byron's daughter, Augusta Ada Byron, (Countess of Lovelace) was Charles Babbage's collaborator on the 'difference engine'. She wrote the first computer program to calculate Bernoulli numbers. The programming language ADA is named for her. She was a longtime collaborator after 1833.

[7] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_collaborated_with_Ch...

Charles Babbage wrote the program for her.

In a series of letters between 1842 and 1843, the pair collaborated on seven notes, the combined length of which was three times longer than the actual paper. In one note Ada prepared a table of execution for a program that Babbage wrote to calculate the Bernoulli numbers. In another, she wrote about a generalized algebra engine that could perform operations on symbols as well as numbers. Lovelace was perhaps the first to grasp the more general goals of Babbage’s machine, and some consider her the world's first computer programmer.

[8] http://www.charlesbabbage.net/

Also.

I then suggested that she add some notes to Menabrea's memoir, an idea which was immediately adopted. We discussed together the various illustrations that might be introduced: I suggested several but the selection was entirely her own. So also was the algebraic working out of the different problems, except, indeed, that relating to the numbers of Bernoulli, which I had offered to do to save Lady Lovelace the trouble. This she sent back to me for an amendment, having detected a grave mistake which I had made in the process.

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

Let’s all grow up for one minute. Are we to believe that Babbage, who had conceived of the difference engine years before Ada got involved, had not written programs for it? That doesn’t pass the smell test.

In researching this piece, I found a brilliant video of Doron Swade. For those not turned on by the subject matter, fast-forward to 36:25 to see a brilliant summary of Ada Lovelace that I agree with completely.

The Ada Lovelace affair is a case of facts not mattering in the face of an agenda. If you care about the truth, then you should correct those who misrepresent history for their personal emotional gains.

Sources

[1] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Ada_and_the_First_Computer.pdf. pp81

[2] http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/itdepartment/e390/

[3] http://inventors.suite101.com/article.cfm/who_invented_the_worlds_first_computer_program

[4] http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/03/ada-lovelace-day/

[5] http://hubpages.com/hub/Historiography-of-Ada-Augusta-Lovelace

[6] http://plus.maths.org/issue34/features/ada/index.html

[7] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_collaborated_with_Charles_Babbage_and_wrote_the_first_computer_program

[8] http://www.charlesbabbage.net/

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

The Princess and the Frog. Racist too, apparently

ArgusEyes — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:24:30 GMT

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

“THE Princess and the Frog” does not open nationwide until December, but the buzz is already breathless: For the first time in Walt Disney animation history, the fairest of them all is black.

Who cares. Judge me not by the colour of my skin yada yada yada.. I only say that, because I’m a racist though. The modern disease is to judge everything through the lens of race. yeah baby! That’s not racist thought. Paying constant attention to, and deference to race isn't in any way race-ism, do you disagree? Racist. Moving on.

After viewing some photographs of merchandise tied to the movie, which is still unfinished, Black Voices, a Web site on AOL dedicated to African-American culture, faulted the prince’s relatively light skin colour. Prince Naveen hails from the fictional land of Maldonia and is voiced by a Brazilian actor; Disney says that he is not white.

“Disney obviously doesn’t think a black man is worthy of the title of prince,” Angela Bronner Helm wrote March 19 on the site. “His hair and features are decidedly non-black. This has left many in the community shaking their head in befuddlement and even rage.”

Sweet Jebus. This world is filled with insufferable jackasses and busybodies with nothing better to waste their time on (ahem). I swear. The issue is not this victim movement or that victim movement. It’s the mentality of the human victim complex and groupthink. These people are invested in a victim worldview. They are happy in being unhappy.

Of course, armchair critics have also been complaining about the princess. Disney originally called her Maddy (short for Madeleine). Too much like Mammy and thus racist. A rumour surfaced on the Internet that an early script called for her to be a chambermaid to a white woman, a historically correct profession. Too much like slavery.

And wait: We finally get a black princess and she spends the majority of her time on screen as a frog?

Everyone is racist, my chair is racist (actually it’s black so no way), her name is racist, the theme is racist, this is racist, that is racist, her skin isn’t “black” enough, his skin isn’t “black” enough, his hair isn’t “black” enough.

“Because of Disney’s history of stereotyping,” said Michael D. Baran, a cognitive psychologist and anthropologist who teaches at Harvard and specializes in how children learn about race, “people are really excited to see how Disney will handle her language, her culture, her physical attributes.”

Hmmm, let me peer into my crystal ball. Yep! It’ll be deemed to be racist, by a lot of really creative twists of logic that defy the imagination. And I confidently expect Disney to cringe and apologise like a puppy that has just wet the rug. Just like Hallmark did with their “racist” card. Maybe Disney they will pull a Capcom and alter the film somewhat.

Either way, I’ll be sitting back to watch the spiralling of society into a black hole (not black whore) of stupidity. Anyway, I’m off to brush my racist teeth and lie down in my racist bed to ponder, in amazement, the bone-crushing foolishness of the human race.

African-American women struggle to overcome wealth gap

ArgusEyes — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:02:51 GMT

When I saw a story on the BBCs website entitled “African-American women struggle to overcome wealth gap”, I must admit I was sceptical. I thought that I would get an article about how western society tramples all over blacks who can’t get ahead of insurmountable obstacles thrown in their path, etc.

What I got, in part, was a surprisingly practical article about how some black women in America (I don’t say African-American.. doh!) are tackling their poverty with good approaches and good results.

The prospects, you'd think, are bleak. But Kenya Williams is far from downhearted. With the help of Allendale County ALIVE, a community development corporation, she's learning how to manage her finances.

"They show me how to budget my money," she says.

Treyonde Allen runs ALIVE's classes in basic book-keeping. She's on a mission to break a cycle of ingrained and inherited poverty.

"I'm trying to instil a culture of saving and budgeting for the entire household," she says.

Ms Allen also warns students of the dangers posed by predatory lenders and lives lived on credit.

"Don't sign up for a credit card just because they're going to give you a piece of pizza and a T-shirt," she tells them. "That stops something right there."

Right at the start of the piece, is an interesting fact.

A recent academic study found that the gap in wealth between white and black Americans had more than quadrupled between 1984 and 2007.

Are we to assume that the treatment of blacks has worsened by a factor of four from 1984 to 2007. Has the station of blacks decreased to account for that gap? No. Look at America now and as I have heard many leftists revealingly admit that they never would have thought that they would see a black man in the Whitehouse in their lifetime, but there he is.

By the way BBC, references please. Anyway. So far so good. Now on to the victimology.

"In this country we call America, for more than 250 years, African-Americans were property," says Anton Gunn, an African-American member of South Carolina's House of Representatives.

...

"African-Americans have just started... to be able to obtain and own anything," he says.

Mr. Gunn. The 60s were fifty years ago. What part of the sentence “African-Americans have just started... to be able to obtain and own anything” is even remotely true? Seriously. How can he say that? Bold faced lie? Or delusional distortion of reality brought on by a deep victim mentality. Probably the latter.

But Bernie Mazyck, president of the South Carolina Association of Community Development Corporations, says narrowing the wealth gap in America needs to start with a more honest conversation about how we got here.

"There are reasons why blacks are still behind the ball when it comes to accumulating wealth," he says. "It's a conversation of basic economics."

Yes it is basic. You live sensibly and take personal responsibility and you will accumulate wealth. If you work hard and live by some sensible rules (like don’t leave your current job until you have another, etc) then you will likely do well, you don’t live in the gulag. Over time, you will have more and your mentality will be passed onto your children who will likely grow up with more opportunity than you had and will succeed even more. Thus you have lifted yourself out of poverty.

The most acidic thing to destroy the potential of this happening is attitudes like Bernie Mazyck’s. Dwelling on the past is a road to the ruin of many black people’s lives. Does anyone here think Mr. Mazyck’s call for “a more honest conversation” is itself honest? I don’t think so. I think that at the first sign of arguments like the ones contained in this blog post will generate cries of “racist” and “bigot”.

A summary of modern gender-psychoanalysis

ArgusEyes — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:34:46 GMT

Watch out for the envy police

ArgusEyes — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:51:42 GMT

Occasionally I take a comment that someone has entered elsewhere in the site, and write it up as a new post. I do this when I feel the answers and questions are prominent enough to be featured. Commenter “goLookGoRead” has posted the following on my “women are more sexist than men” video as well as many others. The first two parts have been omitted because I didn’t have a lot to say to them. I am starting a couple of paragraphs in.

It is very easy to fall into a mindset of 'envy' (I think of envy as the worst kind of hate - because it leads to racism, misogyny and man-bashing behaviour) irrespective of gender or race, it is 'envy' itself that creates urban rude behaviour. Stop labelling people racist or politically correct/incorrect, male or female and start talking about being 'envious' for what 'envy' really is - the most divisive thing in the universe!

The mindset of “envy” seems to be what you take up later on in your comment where you suggest that the government must steal the money from the wealthy and give it to the poor (I.E. you) but it’s other people’s envy that’s the problem isn’t it? Like how socialists cry about the greed of capitalists but their own personal greed’s and wants go unnoticed. That makes me feel like re-posting this:

That aside, the idea that “envy” (or “greed” as some state) leads to racism, misogyny and man-bashing behaviour seems, to me, to be foolish. You are welcome to develop that idea more but when I think of these problems then envy doesn’t come into it. What is the racist envious of? What is the misogynist envious of?

Let’s take racism. What causes racism in my mind? Well, I happen to think it is an indelible part of human nature, the de-humanisation of other groups because of their physical race differences. Racism is founded on hate, to state that another race is different but deserve equal rights is not racist, to argue that another race or sex is “inferior” in a whole and intractable way is irrational and founded on hatred for that race or sex. Feminists do this all the time. Where does it come from? The victimisation complex.

The English as a people are aghast at racism against certain groups (say, an African for example) but we allow ourselves to be fairly bigoted towards the French and Germans. Feminists coo at how they are the progressive ones in society but they are some of the most tyrannical people out there. Their own bigotry is wrapped up in the self-justification of the various ways they have been slighted (or think they have) and this slides their route down the pyramid oppression towards those they feel have slighted them. The feminist, the victim, comes to oppress men. The black, the victim, acts more racist then whites do. Bigotry never goes away, it simply shifts from group to group. Bigotry is human and human is bigotry.

Political Correctness and Racism - Harlesden and Brent, the 'Heinz 57' borough of London, is where I experience arrogance, and rudeness everyday whenever I step out of my front door. The politically correct intelligentsia haven't got a clue because they have a choice not to live in Harlesden. I do not call my neighbourhood 'multi-cultured' because 'culture' (imnsho) can't exist alongside council estate ghettoism combined with a selfish type of street culture. The only genuine 'multi-cultured' society happens in more affluent parts of London where everybody can afford to live decent lives among well educated and polite society.

That is why, as I always said to people, I would never live in London. It’s overcrowded, it’s too violent, the people are rude and it smells. Why are you there? You seem to dislike it too. No one is going to save you, you need to move if you dislike it so much.

I am a white woman and I live in Harlesden in London. I hate living in Harlesden, but Harlesden is where I can afford to exist (I would not call it 'a life', in the sense of living, because I don't like the quality of my life here in Harlesden - even though it is a relatively green borough and it is quite close to the centre of London).

I’m confused. Is living in London cheaper then every other part of the country? There’s nothing to stop you moving if you don’t want to live there. I moved from the UK completely and move from Devon, to Wales, to Cambridgeshire when I did live in the UK.

In an ideal world we would get a government who would rob from the rich and give to the poor, but that is never going to happen! So 'envy' control is a logical approach. So I shut up and put up hoping that one day me, and my man, will afford to escape the country or escape to the country.

Your utopia has been tried and it has failed. Envy is the cause of so much evil in your mind but your own envy on this matter is fine? Also, how would a world be “ideal” when it would rest on a fundamental sin (theft) to keep it going? Would the moral spirit of people living under a system be unimpeachable as their subsistence is dependent on a moral wrong?

If the wealth producers in society have the produce of their hard work, capital, taken from them, then they will simply stop producing capital or will be massively de-incentivised to do so. The “pie” of wealth that people seem to think comprises societies’ money like some zero-sum game will shrink and the pieces that it doles out to the people will become miniscule. Again, this is not abstract theory, this has been tried over and over again.

The scent of fascism inherent in your desires is confirmed by the term “envy control”. Images of 1984 thought police and the secret service coming to take you away in the night for “envy crimes” come to mind. Put England to the sword in the name of your theories? Such is the fate of when society’s path is set by an oligarchy of people who see themselves as the enlightened ones. It will be another lesson for history that to do so will lead to failure. Freedom, despite its flaws, is a better way.

Dalrymple: Sympathy Deformed

ArgusEyes — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:34:30 GMT

To sympathize with those who are less fortunate is honorable and decent. A man able to commiserate only with himself would surely be neither admirable nor attractive. But every virtue can become deformed by excess, insincerity, or loose thinking into an opposing vice. Sympathy, when excessive, moves toward sentimental condescension and eventually disdain; when insincere, it becomes unctuously hypocritical; and when associated with loose thinking, it is a bad guide to policy and frequently has disastrous results. It is possible, of course, to combine all three errors.

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_otbie-sympathy.html

The Big Picture: Scenes from the Gulf of Mexico

ArgusEyes — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:46:39 GMT

A dead turtle floats on a pool of oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in Barataria Bay off the coast of Louisiana Monday, June, 7, 2010. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/scenes_from_the_gulf_of_mexico.html

Do you have a favourite flag?

ArgusEyes — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 23:02:25 GMT

I do, and it’s for the “Isle of man”.

Holy crap! A spiral of disembodied legs. Cool.

How do feminist oppress men? Plus other questions

ArgusEyes — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:52:25 GMT

From my previous answering questions post comes yet more questions from “bob”. So here they are:

“How do feminist oppress men, or how do they take away men's rights?”

Two ways:

One way is by pushing ideas into the zeitgeist that are anti-male, a good example of this is the Norwegian board of women law (where 40% of the boards of companies must be female) and any quota based law. These laws are not necessarily passed by feminists but are the result of feminist/leftist memes that hold that equal outcomes are necessarily the product of systemic sexism against women and therefore laws must be passed to pass power from the privileged (men) to the underprivileged (women). That unequal outcomes point absolutely to sexism is a though based upon the meme that men and women are the same. After all, if they’re not the same then that difference might explain the differences in outcomes in certain professions – an idea that feminist do not entertain.

The second way is direct action my feminists be it male only university courses (May Daly) or by self-professed feminists who are usually in the government. A good example of this is Harriett Harman who would actually pack the board of a bank with women. Which is direct sexism.

“What rights don''t[sic] men have?”

I make videos for a reason. If I may quote a section from my “Men are more oppressed than women” video.

First unlike the example above this pension tale is genuine oppression. Men in the UK have to work until 65 to qualify for a full pension, women have to work until 60 and generally make less and have more paternity leave. Laws that impose different standards on us based on our sex. Sounds like oppression to me.

How about the fact that discrimination against men is governmentally mandated. Forget about the companies and the universities. The most solid example of this is the new leader of the conservative party in the UK proposed quotas to get the shortlist of political candidates to be half women [2]. Where you see quotas read discrimination.

How about the right to reproductive control. When a woman becomes pregnant then she can abort, give up for adoption and in America shortly after the birth she can abandon the baby and resolve herself of parentage of that baby, this is called safe haven abandonment. When a man gets a woman pregnant then he is screwed, his entire life now becomes a script that the woman will write. If he wants the baby and she doesn’t tough for him, if he doesn’t want the baby and she does then tough for him also.

How about the right to equal protection? Our fascist police state will oppressively arrest a man for a woman’s violence because only men can abuse. A message that is spread by our system and our politicians.

How about the denial of parentage for men? When a split happens the man is treated as sub-human, completely controlled by the government who tell him when he can see his children and when he can’t like he is some sort of criminal.

How about divorce? Where a woman is entitled to her husbands assets and men are made to pay out large sums of money to their wives from businesses that they made succeed. A recent case involved a large payout and continual payouts every year for the rest of the woman’s life!

A man is more likely to be convicted and convicted for longer periods of time than a woman for a similar crime, like murder. We need only look at the attitudes surrounding the Clara Harris case and we see the sympathy that is poured on a woman murderer.

Health spending, for every £1 spend on men’s health care, £8 is spent on women’s health care [3]. Government and charity spending for breast cancer is 37 millions, it’s 10 million for prostate cancer, both diseases kill as many. So the government is spending more to protect a certain segment of the population, how about that?

http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2008/05/10/men-are-more-oppressed-than-women.aspx

“What power do the feminist have to do so if their only power is their voice?”

Ideas are powerful things. The mass murderers of history got into power, in part, by appealing to the masses with ideas. Theories on repressed memory syndrome were used to implant memories of abuse into the minds of patients, by psychologists, and led to convictions of completely innocent day-care workers (many of whom were women) and fathers.

Feminists are an advocacy group who have the current position, of representing women and being equated with what is good for women. I don’t believe this is so but nonetheless, they can influence policy, craft laws and last but not least they can indoctrinate young women and men with their ideas through the apparatus of university.

Never. Ever. Underestimate the power of ideas.

“What's wrong with protesting,[sic] isn't being active part of activism?”

I believe they are protesting on behalf of bad values. That is what I object to in feminism. Are you talking about physical protests? I expect it. Any protest that gets to obnoxious and loud will irritate me, even if I support the cause (tea parties for example).

“Also, are you anti any other movements?”

I am anti any movement that stands against liberty or/and on the side of political correctness.

I am against antiquated and corrupted victimist movements such as feminist and “blackism” or minority racist movements such as the modern black movements or any that is based upon race.

I am against pure racist movements such as the black panthers, K.K.K or white supremacists in general.

I am against the general milieu of anti-freedom movements such as socialism, Nazism, communism, Maoism, Islamism, etc.

I am against radical animal rights movements which are based on the idea of equating humans and animals (like P.E.T.A.), not the ones which want decent treatment for animals.

I am against movements based upon magic, which want the consequences of that magic to be influenced upon others. Such as creationism pseudoscience and religious movements.

I am against anti-science movements such as creationism and anti-vaccination and feminism (yes, many victimist movements have strong anti-science components).

I think I covered most of the bases. In short, I am against most movements as well as the idea of movements. Because at heart, movements are made up of people who represent a certain mindset, the mindset that the world revolves around their particular issue and they tend to view it in the extreme. Movements inevitably tend towards degradation such as feminist fighting for genuine equal rights for women to become the twisted movement it is today. They get invested in perpetuating the movement, and do so, normally by shifting the goalposts of what they oppose and manufacturing new controversies to fight.

Answering Questions

ArgusEyes — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:14:39 GMT

A young man emailed me asking me a bunch of questions. Here are my replies which were made hastily, given the broadness of the questions (answered late at night so excuse the occasional misplaced word I am sure is in there).

---

"Do you think the feminist movement is doing more harm or good to our society?"

At the moment, the feminist movement is doing more harm to society. When feminism was in the ascendancy there is no question that it did good things, as a libertarian/classical liberal, all peoples of society must face no systemic governmental discrimination based upon skin colour or sex. However, in our modern times, in the western world, feminism has become a vanguard of the radical left and political correctness and thus poses a number of problems.
They stand in opposition to reality and science. As the David Reimer case demonstrated. There have been number of abandoned (or played down) feminist anti-science positions. From men and women being the same, to gender being socially constructed (taken to the physical extremes in the David Reimer case). To the denial of male/female differences today in the equal outcome view of professions (leading to the support of quotas) and the equating of male and female physical attributes as being the same.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001737-504083.html)

This is merely the tip of the iceberg. This is going to turn into an essay if I were to list the problems in even short detail. In short, I find that they lessen the political discourse, reclassify words, support anti-freedom laws, indoctrinate young women and men into nonsense, make woman less happy, oppress men, make men less happy, and on and on and on.. For more just consult the blogs and my videos.

"what are some things that lead you to believe this?"

My evolution was gradual. I grew up in a leftist household where no hint of anti-feminist spirit existed. I moved away from my family as regards politics because I so fundamentally differed. In short, the less left you are the more likely you are to be anti-feminist.
I never liked feminists as a child, they seemed to have a chip on their shoulders and to be genuinely hate filled and angry. As I grey up and went to university I found that the young women I was going to university with had chips on their shoulders that were completely at odds with their status in society. In short, never had women had so much opportunity but never had they seemed to be be so aggrieved. I tied the behaviour of these young women with victimist movements (I also observed other victims movements) and feminism.

"and finally what do you think might be a solution against feminism?"

The solution is not restricted to feminism. In short, feminism thrives when leftist ideas thrive. Feminism grew out of a cultural attitude of PC. Many other problems stem from this. The solution is for western democracies to turn back the tide of politically correct thinking that they have slid into. Call me a pessimist, but this I think they cannot do. We shall see.

HDR wallpapers

ArgusEyes — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:58:25 GMT

In the aims of making this blog more of a manifestation of my own personality and, adding a bit more colour here and there. I give you “183 Heavenly HDR Wallpapers”! They could do with some larger versions but nice to look at nonetheless.

True Equality besieged by Thai mob. I yawn.

ArgusEyes — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:04:13 GMT

Oh my. About a week ago I suddenly received a huge influx of emails for a couple of days, which slowed down to a trickle of about three or four a day since then. A bunch of Thais have found my video over again and are writing in to give me a piece of their rather tiny little minds. Let’s dive in and take a random pick shall we?! No kidding, I will now select, um, ten emails at random from the batch I received.

FUCK YOU, SON OF A BITCHMOTHER FUCKER, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MY COUNTRY. DON'T SAY A WORD CONCERN TO MY HOMELAND AGAIN, JUST GO TO HELL.

pueng4426@gmail.com

Say it in caps!

go to hell, fuck your mother,stupid man, don't mention to our country and my king, we don't like about your you tube video if we complaint your country about rape, streetwalker, pollution, murder, to trade abuses your prime minister, please ask yourself that you are the one in your country or you are fucking ass with animal,

kongo_bkk@hotmail.com

This is actually quite cogent by the standards set by the rest.

you guys are either gay or have no life. get over it, be a man! haha

Yes. Those are the only two viable options.

YOU ARE NOT THAI .. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING IN THAILAND !!!! STOP YOUR MOUTH AND GO TO THE HELL !!!

im.finethanks@yahoo.com

Ass hole, Man. You are a stupid through the world. You don't know everything of our king and Thailand.
If you don't have everything to do, will push you finger in plug.

thaksinnolive@gmail.com

Nerd !

And proud of it!

don't say anything about ours king , because u really doesn't understand the culture in Thailand and The Love of My King. BE PANSY....SOMEWHERE ELSE

ppprem23@gmail.com

If you still want to live in this world.Should stop saying what is and is not true.I speak to you with human Language.

I don’t know what language you’re speaking mate.

your mouth smell like rotten dog.go to hell dead buried in a hole.

Best. Insult. Ever.

Our country and Our law are not your business. Many things in your country are waiting for you to do, especially taking care your parents.
We love our King and even there is no this kind of law, it will not change our love to our beloved King.

Yes, it really is the same thing over and over again. We love our king shouted aloud as a mantra.

It really is scary to see such a mass force of wilfully stupid hyper emotional thugs. Whose iron-clad cognitive dissonance will not let one tiny ray of philosophy or reason enter their mind. This is the ugly side of the human animal, the side that leads to evil. I’ve said it before. When discussion of the king is completely off the table and backed up with punishment by the coercive force of government, then what happens when the next king is not such a good man? How will you feel about the apparatus of complete and utter tyranny being set up for such a man to impose his will upon you all? It’s the lesson of history. Concentrated power within an oligarchy leads to terror. Learn.

Ooh! Stuff looks different

ArgusEyes — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:03:23 GMT

Well I suddenly had the urge to re-deign the site so here it is. The new theme represents a move away from being MRA/anti-feminist centred to more of an individualist/libertarian theme. Not that I’ve gone soft on the feminists – merely that I do so as a freethinking individual rather as a member of another “ism”. The quote from the top of the page was taken from Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal fascism”. The umbrella as a sign of individualism? Interesting.

If there are any teething problems then excuse me, if you see anything too messed up then please send me a message and suggestions are always welcome.

Also, I’ve put in some functional changes too. Post previews are longer. The site should be more compact. I’ve added BBCode capabilities to comments so you can mark-up your comments with bold, italic, underline, lists, links and quotes.

I’m going to try and post more and fine tune the site to perfection. I hope you all like the look.

The classic rejoinder

ArgusEyes — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:31:53 GMT

Mr. grammar from my last post. Has responded and it’s a winner! Hint, when your response can be crafted by an automated program then you might as well not make it. if(state.ICannotUndestandBecauseYourMessageMakesNoSense) { Response.Write(“Aha you cannot counter my brilliance and therefore criticise my spelling”; }

Oh boy do I love the “you need to get laid” card. I never hear that one.. Every five seconds.

im sorry for my awfull english, its not my mother language, so... but i think u wouldnt understand german, would u? no, so i have to use this one,
its funny how u think that because of the fact that u speak better english makes u in some way smarter or let u think that u have not to answer to that message. comon man dont exaggerate
i mean is that all u have? Apperantly yes. U really need to get laid...no seriously

by the way, nice gay vids

Nice gay vids? Do you mean that I have some homosexual videos? Where? At some point I may address that subject, thanks.

By the way. Even Germans use punctuation, capitalisation and non-l33t (A.K.A. “retard”) shortcuts.

Just for the laughs my friends. Nothing more.

Do you understand this?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:35:19 GMT

This one’s a classic. A message sent to be by another YouTube user.

hi Mark, ich have to admit that i was not able to reach u with a better way instaed making stupid comments on ur youtube page. But beside that i did not thought that u would answer or rfelect ur own thinking in a critical way. u might think i have not watch ur vids, or tried to udnerstand what problems u might see in some societies, but thats not true. I watch it, i listen to u and i understand more than ever. Im very very sure that u blustered u so much with that topic of men vs. woman that ur not able to make a step back regard what u r actually saying.
this hole men vs woman neurotic thing is simulation in ur brain that make u believe u discovered a huge issue that must be solved. im sorry i dont see any substance at all in what ur talkin.
My favorite example is how u mentioned the plane crash in the hudson river, where u questioned the basic ritual of first women , then men. Ask urself, what does this have to do with equality?
man common dont be so cocky and noncritical to urself.
For me an intelligent human being is someone that dont need to be questioned by others, he already question hisself right from the beginning

best regards

How about I play the “how many mistakes are in each sentence” game? Hang on.. Is this message even separated into sentences?

Don’t bother to try and decipher it or respond. I’m merely going to answer back saying that unless he wants to treat me with the respect to write a proper legible message in English, then I won’t bother trying to answer him.

Rape is equality? What?! These are not the MRA’s you’re looking for.

ArgusEyes — Sun, 30 May 2010 06:42:59 GMT

From P.Z. Myers blog, pharyngula. I get this article by some guy called Eivind Berge (case in point, this is why anonymity might be a good idea on the internet), called “Rape is equality”.

Maybe it’s a clever title, right? I have planned many videos with risqué titles that explained what they mean later on. Not here though, he is literally proposing that “feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong.”. Lovely.

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well.

…

So let us give women equality if that's what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong.

I don’t know who this guy is, and anyone can blog, but I don’t know how anyone claiming to be a libertarian can hold such views. Also, it seems that Berge is using feminist-inspired thinking here, as opposed to libertarian thinking. The idea that we force, through the apparatus of law, the equality of groups who have perceived "”slights” above or below another, is leftist. The fact that this is not a libertarian position in any way is not going to be mentioned by Myers who has a rather fairytale image of what libertarianism actually is. This from a man who doesn’t like the subtleties of atheism passing the religious nuts by. Oh the irony!

That said, he just appears to be some berk on the internet, any reason to take thus guy seriously? Nope.

Despite this, such a juicy bit of material isn’t going to slip by Myers as he makes this statement:

What do women have that men don't? Vaginas. So poor pathetic Eivend Berge is asserting his right to rape. He's quite open about it: "it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong" and "Rape is equality." You'll find his type is fairly common among a group who call themselves "Men's Rights" proponents, where Men's Right seems to be to maintain economic and social inequities that benefit them.

“You'll find his type is fairly common among a group who call themselves "Men's Rights" proponents”. If by “his type” you mean people who advocate rape then no, this is the first time I can remember seeing something like this. I can't hope to be as big an expert on the M.R.M. as P.Z. Myers is so I just hope that the next time he makes a calumny like that, he provides some evidence to back it up.

However, if by “his type” you mean the general misogynist woman hater label that leftists utter as commonly as the word “the”, then you will find a lot of those in the Men’s Rights Movement; if your principle source of information is blogs.

P.Z. Do you want me to trawl the feminists blogs and bring up some of the things they say? I don’t fancy the proposition very much and since we know what you would say, it would be a fruitless exercise. How about the feminist nuts who want the extermination of men? How about those who make biologically ignorant statements about men being parasites (literally) or about men being “an accident”. Do those positions say much about the broader movement of feminism? It depends. If the broader movement also has leaders who parrot those views or teach them in universities or use them to pass legislation then yes, otherwise no.

How many times do I have to keeps saying this? It matters not what kinds of nuts you can find and link to a movement. Unless the normative movement they stand behind can be show to support those views, then you cannot parlay the views of the nuts into anything larger unless you’re a demagogue who doesn’t care about the laws of logic being applied in unpartisan ways.

About this claim:

I'm afraid he needs to learn that legal corrections to a long and ongoing history of economic oppression of women are fair and just,

I’m sorry. Am I allowed to disagree? Or is it just a case of me being not being learned enough? (can you say gulag?). Yes there is one and only once acceptable view, and that is that coercive fiddling and quotas by the apparatus of coercion, government, is fair and just. Disagree, and expect the standard name-shower by the left. Racist, Sexist, Homophone, Xenophobe, etc.

What I love about “legal corrections” is that it is never suggested when these legal correction must stop. At what point do we stop “correcting” for women? When they’ve achieved equality perhaps? What kind? Literal or opportunity? Also, how about the boys falling behind at university? Do we roll back female privilege in university programs and admissions? They’d rather die.

Also, how about the philosophical point that a “legal correction” is sexism by the very definition of the word. In that, it requires the recognition of a candidate’s sex and the hard-coded rule of the land to dole out benefits according to that sex. Sexism pure and simple.

Would people who hate sexism so much actually use it so freely? Leftists don’t have sexism, but instead love victim theology and the politically correct Marx-based view of a society of battling oppressed groups who need the re-distribution of power amongst them.

In a battle for who disgusts me the most. Berge wins hands-down.

Shaming Language

ArgusEyes — Fri, 07 May 2010 08:33:56 GMT

Atheist feminist leftist blogger P.Z. Myers has a post up called “For the boys with boo-boos”. The text is short enough for me to reproduce here in its entirety.

We have a thread on female genital mutilation, and a few boys are insisting on turning it into a discussion of the damage done to their pee-pees by circumcision. For the record, I agree with you: circumcision is mutilation, too, and it shouldn't be done, and doctors shouldn't be collaborating in such a primitive and barbarous practice on children — like piercings and tattoos, it should only be practiced on consenting adults. Except that it's even crazier than a tattoo.

However, FGM is a much more serious problem that causes great pain, destroys most of the capacity for sexual response, and is a tool used to control and oppress women. There is no comparison between FGM and circumcision, and it is annoying to see boys intruding on a thread about a serious political and social issue to insist that everyone look at their little boo-boo.

Yes, I am belittling your loss, because compared to what mutilated women have lost, it's goddamned trivial.

But since some of you are so insistent on demanding that your tallywhackers must be privileged with sympathy, this thread is for you. Go ahead, tell us in all the detail you want how sad you are that your sensitivity has been reduced and that you were tortured for a bit when you were a baby, all true, and I'll even concede right here that it is a genuine problem that ought to be stopped.

Ladies, I suggest that you just ignore this thread. This one is for all the hormonal little guys who need a place to hold hands and cry together.

Get a load of that shaming language. This man, even though he agrees that male circumcision is wrong, is so programmed to grovel at the feet of any female cause and to denigrate males can do no other than couch his agreement in some of the most sickly shaming language I’ve seen.

damage done to their pee-pees

…

to insist that everyone look at their little boo-boo.

…

tell us in all the detail you want how sad you are that your sensitivity has been reduced

…

Ladies, I suggest that you just ignore this thread. This one is for all the hormonal little guys who need a place to hold hands and cry together.

You can’t please the left. On one hand we’re all supposed to find our feminine side and cry more. However, they have complete license to use that against us when we don’t please them.

The only thing he missed was the phrase “act like a man” and it would have been complete.

Now, circumcision is not the most important issue for me. Some have emailed me with a lot of passion about the subject but I find myself unable to really care. Also, FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is much worse than MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) but this post is not about that. It’s about how the left treats male causes. With contempt.

Any man on the normative modern left really needs to reconsider why they’re there.

This one is catchy too

ArgusEyes — Sat, 01 May 2010 15:14:47 GMT

Oh and a warning. Language.

This song will bore its way into your head at night.

ArgusEyes — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:23:17 GMT

Sweet dreams.

I get comment

ArgusEyes — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:29:29 GMT

The most distressing kind of hatemail (or hatecomment) you get are the kind that completely misrepresent and crap on what you believe.

You have a weird hatred towards women... I just noticed that. Um, in case you didn't know, women are treated more badly and exploited more than men. It's entirely our own faults, but you can't deny it. O_o Men are to blame as well, but I think it's up to us to stop it. -shrugs- Dunno why women having equal rights upset you.

invaderzimgir2007
http://www.youtube.com/user/ArgusEyes

I see you left a comment on my profile page. If there's a kind of human being I love, it's the kind who takes real care in his language he uses.

I don't know why the idea of women having equal rights upsets me so. That's probably why I make so many videos saying this exact thing (you do have the links to those videos don't you? It's just that I forget my own stuff sometimes - last I looked I had a bunch of videos criticising a particular political movement called feminism). It's also an idea completely in sync with my other views..

You see; as a libertarian who want a small state, and who opposes state sanctioned differences on people such as the castes inherent in monarchies or fiefdoms. I really want the government to arbitrarily give one group of people rights over another. I also say this all the time in my videos. The ones you might have seen where I state that I support equality of opportunity – not outcome were by my evil doppelganger SeyeSugra.

Yours sincerely,
Argus

Good eats for the brain

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:43:45 GMT

Theodore Dalrymple (aka Anthony Daniels) is a fantastic write who reads some of the most gripping and readable books around on the topics of modern society and culture. His book, Life at the bottom, should be mandatory reading for those who desire to understand human behaviour and life. He has penned an extremely short essay for City Journal called When Freedom Isn’t Free.

Freedom is freedom, not the means by which everyone comes to precisely the same conclusion and conducts himself in precisely the same way.

The depressing, and perhaps sinister, aspect of the public commentary on the case is how largely it has ignored the question of freedom. For liberals, it seems, any trampling on freedom or individual conscience is now justified if it conduces to an end of which they approve. Thus liberalism turns into its opposite, illiberalism.

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0414td.html

This is what Tom Sowell means by “stage 1 thinking”

ArgusEyes — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:19:20 GMT

(click to go to the smbc website)

Symposium on Male Studies at Wagner College

ArgusEyes — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:04:55 GMT

I have been made aware of a conference on the issues facing men and boys today. The URL of the conference is http://www.malestudies.org. Their summary:

A gathering of academicians drawn from a range of disciplines will meet on April 7, 2010, at Wagner College, Staten Island, New York, to examine the declining state of the male, stemming from cataclysmic changes in today’s culture, environment and global economy. The live teleconferenced colloquium will be chaired by Lionel Tiger, PhD, Rutgers University Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology. It will encompass a broad range of topics relevant to the study of boys and men in contemporary society ranging from their roles in the family and workforce, as well as their physical and emotional health, to the growing problem of misandry—the hatred of males, an unacknowledged but underlying socio-cultural, economic, political and legal phenomenon endangering the well-being of both genders.

Hows about an Intelligent Design moron to pass the time?

ArgusEyes — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:54:18 GMT

From my video “Kirk Cameron disproves Pascal's wager”. Which, coincidentally, has 46,000 views – holy cow!

DNA: a digital, redundant, error-correcting, self-replicating CODE: exactly what SETI looks for as proof of intelligence. Codes are information. Information CAN'T evolve; it only comes from intelligence. The irreducable complexity of flagellar motors: capable of 100,000 rpms & can stop at a quarter turn. 40 parts, only 10 of which can be explained by evolution. They must be in a particular order. Lose a part & it doesn't work, thus it can't evolve. It's DESIGNED.

“DNA: a digital, redundant, error-correcting, self-replicating CODE: exactly what SETI looks for as proof of intelligence.”

Nope. S.E.T.I. looks for radio signals that are unlikely to have occurred by natural sources. Discrimination is the key. They don’t go “oh there’s a pattern – aliens!” these people are scientists.

“Codes are information. Information CAN'T evolve; it only comes from intelligence.”

You pulled that from your arse. You have genes. Those genes are “information”. Those genes copy themselves with modifications. Those modifications can result in novel traits. Congratulations, your “information” has evolved.

“The irreducible complexity of flagellar motors: capable of 100,000 rpms & can stop at a quarter turn. 40 parts, only 10 of which can be explained by evolution. They must be in a particular order. Lose a part & it doesn't work, thus it can't evolve. It's DESIGNED.”

Lose a section from the base of a tower and it will collapse.
Thus the tower couldn’t have been built bit-by-bit, HAIL JESUS!

RE: Libertarianism defined. Is Libertarianism right or left?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:05:03 GMT

One of my favourite blogs is P.Z. Myers pharyngula, although I rarely agree with much of what he says when it’s not about atheism. He write a doozy of a post entitled “Libertarianism defined”. Here’s the money shot.

“Libertarianism. A simple-minded right-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.”

That is perfectly in line with my own sentiments. Libertarianism isn't so much a political and economic movement as it is a widespread pathology.

That’s A-grade intellectual discussion right there. Head on over to the post and you won’t find much in the way of justification, nor will you find any at another post he links to. It’s interesting to see such nonsensical primitive denunciations of a whole system of belief from someone who is undoubtedly fed up of hearing the same from religious people. Does he think that when he makes a simplistic dismissal of libertarianism that it’s okay? When a creationist says that atheists “don’t believe in anything” or “they just want to live consequence free lives”, does P.Z. breath a sigh of annoyance at how ignorant and uninformed they are? Well this proves he’s really not that different from them, change the subject but the attitude remains the same.

Now what of the substance? What substance? There’s really no point trying to address such a mess but there is one point there that makes me cringe.

“Libertarianism. A simple-minded right-wing ideology”..

I’ve heard this charge levied against Libertarianism often. When you hear someone make this claim then you can be sure that they’re quite ignorant of the etymology of political terms and the meaning of libertarianism.

Let’s start at the beginning, with a little help from Wikipedia of course.

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.[8] This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the Senate and National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum were the attitudes towards the ancient regime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic, royal and clerical interests, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, secularism and civil liberties.[1] At that time, support for socialism and liberalism were regarded as being on the left. The earlier "left-wing" politicians were advocates of laissez faire capitalism[citation needed] and the "right-wing" politicians opposed it, until the early nineteenth century when anti-capitalism gained favour among the leftists due to the rise of socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_politics

The terms “left” and “right” are very nebulous. Leftism and conservatism have no political content to them, in that the radical imam who wants the society to remain under the rules of Shariah is conservative but he is very different to an American or British conservative. The political content of the conservative is dependent on the society he or she wished to conserve.

The same is true for people on the left. Being left means that one wants to move society towards a goal or new order. In this sense we can see that Libertarianism is left based. It has a societal ideal that it wants to achieve. If you don’t know what this ideal is then hit Google and do a bit of research. Libertarians often call themselves “classical liberals”, in that they adhere to the liberalism of yore, the free market kind that existed before it became synonymous with diluted socialism.

People mix up libertarianism with the right because of the similarities between libertarianism and conservatism in the western world, which is where much of the discussion happens. Libertarianism overlaps with conservative in America because conservatives want to conserve a society which has been conducive to freedom whereas Libertarians follow a political philosophy grown out of the American experience and hold freedom as a value. Therefore they follow the same policies much of the time, such as smaller government, smaller taxes, etc.

15 Questions from a Feminist

ArgusEyes — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:45:49 GMT

Recently I was contacted by a feminist who asked me 15 questions. I rarely do so much typing without offering the end result for everyone else to see and criticise so here are my answers:

1. What is feminism to you? Is its position defensive or offensive? Do you think one could be sympathetic to its theories?

To me, feminism is the enemy. The existence of the men’s rights movement is owed directly to feminism and its influences on society. No feminism, then no MRA’s (Men’s Rights Activists). This is not to say that the movement has not achieve some good, but like most victim movements its inevitable end is depravity, and I’m sure MRAism will be the same which is why I am reticent to associate myself with any “ism” without due diligence. I am more anti-feminist than I am an MRA.

Feminisms position is primarily offensive, it is about imposing a political view on society. Even if I were to agree with the gender goals of feminism, I, as a Libertarian, would surely despise its totalitarian leanings. Most feminists are leftists, they have a plan for how things should be.

2. Because you believe in equal opportunity as opposed to material equality, do you think that little girls and teenage girls really have equal opportunity? Or are young boys disadvantaged?

What I have always said is that females have no less opportunity than males in our western societies. However, there are many areas where they have more opportunity/rights. See my video “men are more oppressed than women” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWIfMjzBII) for examples of this. Boys are certainly disadvantaged when compared to women but I don’t want to come off as a whiner here. I don’t go around thinking “man, I’m so oppressed”. It doesn’t happen. I am a person who is opinionated and takes a visceral dislike to feminism and the ideas and attacks on men it represents.

3. Does patriarchy exist? Doesn’t the fact that men have more power, prestige, and influence in America confirm that patriarchy exists? What are your views on hegemony?

Yes. As a societal system in many countries around the world, it exists. Does it exist in the west? No. Words have meanings. If we look at the definition of patriarchy:

“a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.”

Males must have the ruling position by design for it to be patriarchy. I’ve had a feminist make the argument to me before that since most politicians in the UK are male then it’s patriarchal, but this is ridiculous of course, they’re there because they were elected, not because of their genitalia. If we were to have more women as politicians in a year’s time then would we live in a matriarchal society? No. It was another example of sloppy thinking by a person who desperately wanted to be the victim.

4. Considering about 60% of women in America self-identify as feminists, do you really think that feminism is all about the vilification/ emasculation/ castration of men? Aren’t they more subtle and nuanced than “wanting to blame you for everything”?

You are simplifying what I believe feminism to be. Hatred of men may be a common trait in feminists but it is not what feminism is about or what attracts women to feminism. I’ve not heard this 60% figure but it wouldn’t surprise me. Many people don’t know anything about feminism and have bought into the line that is stands for equal rights and all things good. The appeal to popularity isn’t a good argument. People can buy into crap and have done so many times throughout history.

5. What would have to change before men and women achieved true equality?

Societal: We would have to adopt the opportunity view of equality and mean it; we would have to get over this instinct of sniggering when “men’s rights” are mentioned and realise that women have no less opportunity than men do and now men and boys are suffering in many regards. We also need to drop chivalry and the need to protect women using the law. If we are going to have equal opportunities then we need to get over this primitive protectionist mentality.

Concrete examples: No different prison punishments for males vs. females. Shared custody as a default. No quotas (AKA positive discrimination). Equal retirement ages. No wage coercion. Equal opportunity for protection for male victims of DV. Plus some..

Also, more women than men in the workplace, politics or university is not an instance of oppression against men if they got there by their own choice on an equal playing field. If they got there by bringing men down with the coercive force of the state, then that is what I have a problem with.

6. How do men in today’s society feel about women in general?

As a misanthrope, I cannot tell you what “men” think. Many who I’ve talked to are as fed up as I am about many aspects of modern feminism.

7. Is there a difference between women and women’s roles in England and women’s roles in America? I’ve heard that women from the UK are more independent, and we are 93% religious.

Whatever differences there are will be small. I think that the two societies are largely similar and thus will be the gender roles.

8. (Do you still refer to us as “the colonies”?)

Nope.

9. Aren’t some (some) men’s issues irrelevant to gender discrimination? For instance, I was watching John Stuart, which featured some air time about a certain men’s rights group in Canada. Their leader voiced concern that “when a football player gets kicked off a football team, none of the cheerleaders would think to still cheer for him, in class, at school… “ and that “men don’t have a place to organize and be guys anymore”. I couldn’t believe it. He’s angry that girls don’t cheer for boys MORE than they already do? And what are bars, poker nights, gentlemen’s clubs, basements, auto mechanic shops, sports stadiums, and the US Senate for? Obviously men’s rights aren’t particularly concerned about these things, but what about others? Men’s circumcision, for instance? Or the fact that more men are dropping out of school? Or the prevalence of suicide, or the exemption of women in combat? None of these issues have anything to do with feminism or oppression, and yet they’re treated as such.

That guy was Warren Farrell, he is a luminary of the men’s rights movement and he has a lot of sensible things to say. I would take what you see on the John Stuart comedy hour with a pinch of salt, they are not above cheap editing and misrepresentation.

Some problems are an indirect consequence of feminism. Girls rise and boys fall in the wake of a massive political and social movement known as feminism which is dedicated to benefiting women and girls. Either girls have reached their natural superior status and boys have fallen for some other reason, or the social engineering over the past decades has had a bad effect, or some other reason. MRA’s and anti-feminists pick the middle one.

10. Don’t most men feel superior to women on some level?

On some level maybe. Like physically. However, I don’t think men stand around feeling superior about this, they understand that men are men and women are women, and both have their good and bad qualities.

11. Can men and women treat each other with mutual respect without pandering to the conventions of chivalry and femininity?

Mutual respect is easier without the knee-jerk manbashing that I’ve encountered from numerous young women I have lived with and worked with over the years. I’ve seen nothing like this on a similar level from the men I’ve known. It’s not 50/50. Female attitudes have been influenced by the societal zeitgeist over the years and this has been driven, in turn, by feminism. The gender war has been a one-sided war so far, we have a problem with manbashing media more than the other way around. Women need to let go of their resentments if relations are to become better.

12. Why do you accuse women of ‘destroying the family’? Wasn’t the 1950s family scene degrading to women? Isn’t it good that women are putting their careers first?

This one is bemusing. Could you point out where I said this?

13. How are little boys and girls socialized, and how does this affect their perceptions of gender?

One of the greatest socialising factors in our society is feminism. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion” refers to the actions of feminism as “consciousness raising”. He states:

“It was the feminists who raised my consciousness of the power of consciousness-raising.”

...

“Man, mankind, the rights of man, all men are created equal, one man one vote - English too often seems to exclude women. When I was young, it never occurred to me that women might feel slighted by a phrase like "the future of man". During the intervening decades, we have all had our consciousness raised. Even those who still use "man" instead of "human" do so with an air of self-conscious apology - or truculence, taking a stand for traditional language, even deliberately to rile feminists.”

[http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=%22it+was+the+feminists+who+raised+my+consciousness+of+the%22&source=bl&ots=1ghH-2IhyR&sig=AESfS975FZ1wnnF0afu_IHNToOQ&hl=en&ei=d8NvS8TUBof8tAOWp-2xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22it%20was%20the%20feminists%20who%20raised%20my%20consciousness%20of%20the%22&f=false]

I feel this when I use the generic “he”. We have indeed been affected by feminist in our western societies, they have formed our language and laws. I can tell you how it affected one little boy – me. I was hurt by the feminist slogans about fish and bicycles. I felt the manbashing on TV. Feminism has had free reign – there is no normative opposition to their views until the one that is growing now.

14. Wouldn’t implementing a ‘men’s studies’ department be redundant, due to the fact that every academic subject extols the achievements, conquests, and intellectual breakthroughs of men in history, art, science, etc.?

I do not think there should be men’s studies departments. My reaction to feminism is not to instigate the same policies but with the sex reversed to males instead of females.

However, I don’t agree with your representation of many fields to extol the achievements of men. They extol the achievements of great figures in history, some of these are women but the vast majority are men because of the nature of gender roles in the past. Fair or not, these men are extolled not for being men, but for being the great figures of history.

Also, extolling the achievements of men would not be the aim of a men’s studies course. The course would be a study of the male mind and role in society. To the historical courses take this approach to understanding men?

15. Is domestic violence really 50/50 in severity, domination, long-term effects, etc.?

I don’t know about 50/50, it probably doesn’t end up that way but I do think that DV against me is played down in our society. Whether it is 50/50 or not, men deserve the opportunity of protection that is being afforded women if they are suffering from DV.

Cold Calculation

ArgusEyes — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:47:06 GMT

America and the UK slide further down the index of freedom.

ArgusEyes — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:05:16 GMT

There has been a nifty little resource that I have been using for a while now. It’s called the index of economic freedom and is produced by the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank based in Washington D.C. thus it assesses freedom from a small government perspective. It is by no means definitive but operates as a good loose guide to the amount of economic, business and fiscal freedom that a country may offer.

Last year the U.K. was hanging in the number 10 slot but it has fallen off of the top ten in 2010, which was expected. What was surprising was the negative 2.7 drop of the Unites States from a “free” country to a “mostly free” country. I knew it would drop but not by so much.

New Zealand, my new country of interest which is holding all my attention at the moment (hence no posts or videos) has risen to number 4 in the list. Leftist/Statist governments make a country and people less free.

Mith's Blog: The Feminist Anti-Porn Argument

ArgusEyes — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:53:35 GMT

Okay, Mith here. I'm going to be doing a few blogs for Argus. Once I figure out how to work this thing...*hits computer with hammer*

Close enough.

Anyways, onto more serious matters. It's often been a common to hear feminists complain about porn. Well, that makes sense. They see it as a way to degrade women...but is that true? Here's a link to a Feminist blog (vlog?) on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHXyomf6NAA&feature=PlayList&p=3B6AC545B0E0C730&index=0

As the blogger indicates, she feels that she cannot clearly outline her problems with porn, but she does have a list that she believes does it well enough for her. As such, I have taken the time to outline the large, large problems with this list. Said list can be found here:

http://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/whats-wrong-with-pornography/

And if you'll bear with me, I still haven't learned to use the quotation method that Argus has, so I'm going to put the quotations in bold and a slightly larger text.

Pornography harms women.
Pornography is not fantasy. Pornography happens in the real world, to real women; everything you see in pornography happened somewhere to a real woman.

Yes, Pornography is real—to an extent. Pornography is an entertainment industry. So while some of these things in porn do happen, such as the actual physical sexual contact, it doesn’t mean that everything else such as incidents surrounding it happened. Nor in fact, does it mean that these women are being forced into this. They choose to do this. Just because a woman is low on income and sees this as a last resort does not mean that they were forced by into it. There are other options that the woman has, but for some reason she chose that industry to make her life.

The pornography industry is a multi-billion dollar global industry.
Pornography exists to make money. It is an industry that chews women up and spits them out; it is an industry where exposure to violence, harassment, injury and infection are seen as normal and acceptable.

Yes, yes it may be. The problem is, that doesn’t make it illegal. Construction workers face similar problems. They are constantly being exposed to danger and they are asked to physically destroy themselves. Or US soldiers. They’re asked to put themselves in areas full of hostile enemies with not just knives, handguns, and a midnight alleyway, but against enemies with automatic weapons, bombs, and tanks. Life is not this rosey little world where everything is fair and nice. People from all walks of life are forced to do things they don’t like.

And why is this a 'woman’s' issue? Why is this not potrayed as something that also chews men up and spits them out? Are they no less on sexual display? Are they no less considered meat that is to be tossed out when no longer of value? What about men who start suffering erectile disfunction? What about men who get too old and are no longer considered of use?

Pornography doesn’t expand our sexuality – it stunts it.
Mainstream heterosexual pornography dictates a narrow and limited idea of human sexuality. In pornography, male sexuality is predicated on cruelty, coercion and degradation; female sexuality is predicated on submitting to or appearing to enjoy being subjected to cruel, coercive and degrading treatment. Pornography eradicates women’s sexual agency, and makes it harder for women to find out about their own bodies and their own sexuality.

False. Yes, there is some porn that does indeed display men using predetorial means of obtianing sex. Porn that displays men being manipulative, forceful, and doing things that are degrading nd cruel is not potraying an accurate form of sexual experience. But then again, pornography isn’t a documentary. It’s not meant to teach men what sex is—it is there to act as a ventation. In the same way that playing a video game of two hardcore cops on the edge is not an accurate represenation of how real police officers work is not meant to portray the reality of law enforcement, neither is porn an actual representation of sexuality. Because it’s not supposed to be.

Porn is directed at men, or least, the majority of it is. And thus, most porn represents a very male dominated presentation because it is a male fantasy. It is the idea of men getting entirely what they want out of sex. What is that? Pleasure and dominance. Just like how in an action game, we want to be a gun totting badass who guns down innocent civilians who get in the way of villains. Porn is nothing more than a fantasy. It’s no better than attacking a violent movie for being violent.

This doesn’t mean that men who watch porn will become violent. It may, for some who are rather naïve, direct them into having some early trips in how reality works if all they’ve seen is fantasy, but that doesn’t mean it ruins their life forever, just like how playing a football game on the Wii and then playing it in real life suddenly causes a brutal awakening to the naïve player. As for women—again, this is not a female oriented industry. Perhaps there are women, who like it, but this is again, a fantasy and they will not be looking to be making love with someone, but rather get out sexual tension.

Pornography portrays sexual violence against women as normal, natural and an inevitable part of male sexuality.
Sexual desire does not develop in a vacuum. The prurient attitude we have to sex in this country, combined with a lack of decent sex education, means that many people use pornography as their primary source of information on what sex is supposed to be like. Mainstream heterosexual pornography tells men that the sexual abuse of women is exciting, and that women enjoy being abused. It tells women that in order to do sex properly, they have to put up with and enjoy such abuse.

Just as sexual desire does not develop in a vacuum, neither do humans lack the ability to learn when reality isn’t living up to fantasy. A young male, even one who has learned only sexuality from porn, is not going to act that way against a woman for only the reason of watching a porn video. Human interaction is far more complicated than that. If a young male experiencing sex for the first time does something overtly aggressive that he sees portrayed in a fantasy—it will be met with female hostility. Why? Because the female does not like it. Now, because in most cases, men want to make their sexual partners happy long before sexual interaction, they will often immediately cease that action. Why? Because it is a logical response. Just like how if I were misinformed in a proper way to speak to someone, I would not continue to act that way when my expectations of their responses are not met. This is because we are a very social species and we will more often than not cease a behavior that is disapproved by another individual.

This is not always true of course. There are plenty of people who will insist upon their way and demand that others obey—but that is not the fault of pornography, but rather a mixture if improper raising on the parent’s part or simple problems with that individual. It is not the company’s fault that someone has chosen fantasy over reality and has trouble because of it.

Pornography reinforces male supremacy, and the idea that men are entitled to sexual access to women’s bodies.
Men define themselves as being whatever is not a woman, in order to be a man it is necessary for there to be a subordinate group of women for men to compare themselves to and feel superior to. In mainstream heterosexual pornography men are always the active agents and women are always the passive objects. No man in pornography ever fails to get what he wants; the women in pornography exist solely to satisfy men’s desires, they have no will or desire of their own except to service men’s needs.

An incredibly bad argument. First, saying that men define themselves as what is not womanhood is utterly and completely bunk. Men are the way they are because men desire to be masculine and they define that based upon their own desires and culture. Furthermore, men are not always portrayed as active agents. There is plenty of pornography depicting women as the aggressors and men as passive objects that the women desire to have and get—purely for their own sexual pleasure.

Again, this isn’t something that men thought on for hours, days, weeks, or even years, but rather a natural desire of humans. It has taken a sexual encounter and potrayed it in a light that while not socially acceptable—is exciting and hence, arousing. The same is true in women. Some women might find a porn where a woman gets forced into sex as arousing because women view masculinity as desirable. And while they would never accept a male who forces her into sex when they want to, they find the situation arousing because it presents a very radical and masculine heavy image.

Pornography portrays sex and women as disgusting.
The words used to describe women and women’s bodies in pornography betray the fact that women and sex are seen as dirty and disgusting by the men who use it: ‘bitch’ ‘cunt’ ‘slut’ ‘fuck toy’ ‘fuck hole’ ‘dirty’ ‘filthy’ etc etc.

Again, that is not entirely true. There are plenty of porn movies, games, and the like that portray sex as deep, beautiful, and in some cases, even spiritual. The women in these more ‘dirty’ pornographies are not portrayed in such a manner because they wish to influence the audience, but rather to appeal to the audience’s already set desires. People don’t make movies (often) because they want to influence people, but rather to appeal to something people like. Action movies and comedies exist because people like them and will pay to see them.

In that same manner, people will pay for dirty porn because they want dirty porn.

Pornography promotes misogynistic beauty standards.
In mainstream heterosexual pornography women are interchangeable, it trains women and men to see a natural female body – one with pubic hair, or small breasts, or any fat – as unnatural and disgusting.

Another misconception. First off, this only shows the lack of knowledge and the abundance of ignorance shown here. There are many pornographies out there that show fat women, older women, hairy women, and women with small breasts as attractive and desirable by males. This is again, because it is playing to the likes and dislikes of people. People in general, prefer attractive counterparts. This is based on a natural desire to seek out a mate that is not only healthy, but successful. This is determined by many factors that make men and women attracted to each other. Women seek out masculine men and thus will be more attracted to men with greater physical strength and stamina, but even more so men will be attracted to women with hips that shows they will bare healthy children or ample breasts that show they will be able to supply that child with nutrition.

Pornography affects you.
Even if you are not a pornography consumer, a significant number of the men you interact with every day will be. It’s difficult to imagine that a man can spend a lot of time viewing and masturbating to degrading images of women without that pornographic ideology having a negative effect on his view of women.

It’s difficult to imagine because it isn’t true. Most men are not stupid, easily led individuals who will believe one source of information their entire life when all of their interactions prove this to be wrong time and time again. Nor is it true that because a great deal of women like Twilight—a fantasy about an emotionally distant and abusive male vampire who treats his girlfriend like an object and nothing better than added luggage—that they will suddenly all desire men such as that. Which is ironic because most men hate Twilight because the vampire Edward is an emotionally distant and abusive boyfriend who treats his girlfriend like an object and nothing better than added luggage.

In short, if this is what you consider a good argument, you’re in trouble. The argument ignores the reason for porn and why it exists. It furthermore ignores the fact of why it exists. This isn’t an argument about morality or how these women are being abused (because they aren’t, they chose this), but rather an argument of porn causes sexual violence and violations. It’s no different than claiming that video games cause violence. It ignores that most people understand the difference and it ignores that most people do not act they way they should in a fantasy setting because fantasies by their nature, are designed for that purpose. So we can act in ways we don’t often act. So we can be the villain, or the cop on the edge. Or the hardcore stud screwing some hot chick and tells her to go make sandwhich.

The fact is, you don’t understand men or women. You just want to paint a perfect world where no one ever even conceives of people being remotely violent or aggressive towards another in a way that isn’t socially acceptable when in fact, we all do it. And the reason we simulate it is so we don’t actually have to do it to get the same satisfaction from it. Just like how some people play video games for the thrill, some people watch porn of abusive sex for the thrill of being mistreated or mistreating. They all appeal to portions of the human mind.

It’s the attack of the feminist stereotypes!

ArgusEyes — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:03:13 GMT

Oh lordy, I’ve been sent three links in the past day that have raised an eyebrow or two. The first is from long time cyber stalker DianaBoston, who criticises me directly by name. I won’t spoil the video but the crux of it is a moral equivalence so vile and stupid that I almost vomited on my shoes.

Check out some of her comments:

MensRifleAssociation (2 days ago)
Reply | Spam
you sure did swing your club today.

DianaBoston (2 days ago)
Reply
Men use clubs, women use their brains and a sword. The sword of justicia!

Okaaay. Moving swiftly along. We have stereotypes B and C.

I would reply to some of these but I’m just too busy.

Come to New Zealand. Where the wildlife will rape you.

ArgusEyes — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:31:46 GMT

I’ve not med one of these yet, thank fuck. Just some inquisitive Kea’s.

Climategate: Much ado about nothing

ArgusEyes — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:37:12 GMT

In case there is anyone out there who cares what i think about this. I have been massively underwhelmed at the criticisms of the email. Others have said it well.

I think that the science now tells us more than enough to warrant action. Certainly there remain uncertainties, but not on the issue as a whole.

With regards the private e-mails posted on the internet, I think the story is a simple one and it could apply to any one of us. Think of all the e-mails you have written over the past 10 years. Now imagine that someone criminally breaks into your e-mail account and downloads all of them, handpicks a few and posts them on the internet to cast you in a particular light. We could all be shown to be saints or sinners or anything in between.

Now look at what has happened with these scientists going about their work in much the same way anyone of us might attend to our job. Enough said.

Potholer54. Great as always.

I am still skeptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). I accept the scientific basis but question the doomsayers' claims. I still think AGW is catnip to various “isms” and the reverse to other “isms”.

I think that the proposed solutions, which is to control and intrude into our lives, are horrible and anti-liberal.

Is homosexuality natural?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:42:09 GMT

Sometimes I make a post on a forum or discussion thread that I think is worthwhile enough to post here. Apologies if this seems cheap but a particularly interesting one arose recently. The issue of “is homosexuality natural” on my MRAS YouTube group as it happens. Why not join and join in on the discussion?

Here is the opening post:

actually..I didnt agree with it a bit. The ACT itself is unnatural. Homosexuality cannot sustain itself.It needs hetrosexuals to survive. If it was natural it would be able to sustain itself like other natural things. When he speaks of oppisites he is wrong. There is no such thing as dark.....only the absense of light.

…

creepyguy...life really aint that complicated. So would you say beastiality...polygamy....paedophilia.... are not unnatural=bad things?

My post:

When discussing this issue it is important that we rigidly decide our terms of discourse.

“Natural” purely means “formed by nature”. Homosexuality exists in a lot of other animal species apart from our own. In this sense homosexuality is indeed natural, so is paedophilia and bestiality.

But you muddied the waters by making a moral equivalence. Essentially natural=good and unnatural=bad. There is no basis for this. An animal species that is an evolutionary dead end and which is doomed for extinction is still formed by nature. Natural isn’t necessarily good. So we as a culture can create a moral code as to what we will accept and what we won’t, be it natural or unnatural. Medicine is also unnatural because they were not formed by nature, their ingredients were but medicine is a creation of man, not of nature.

Also, we don’t say that because man is natural and formed medicine therefore medicine is natural as well. We don’t apply an inheritance chain to this otherwise everything would turn out to be natural and the term would lose all its meaning.

Here are some sources:

Bestiality in nature: Mating toads leap the species barrier.

Homosexuality in nature: 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

I respect Robin Williams about a hundred times more now.

ArgusEyes — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:29:09 GMT

A man who plays good games can’t be all bad. I actually always liked Robin Williams.

Can we generalise feminism?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:24:56 GMT

I have been involved in an email dialog with a feminists, Jen, who bills herself as a “real feminist”, by which she means she is not like those radicals. Great. Her criticism of me is that I criticise feminism as some kind of monolithic entity and don’t pay enough heed to the real feminists like her. This discussion is so common in my email inbox that I feel it would be useful to include it on this blog. It is still ongoing so expect updates.

It starts with her original email to me:

I would be responding to your videos on your comments page, but unfortunately, there are way too many stupid people there for my taste, and no matter what I know I will be bashed because I don't hate women or feminists. This is sort of my response to the all of the videos from you I have watched.

I agree with a lot of your points on our culture's persecution of men. Fathers are just as vital to the family as mothers. Though I think it is unfair to blame only the feminists for encouraging things like no-fault divorce and fatherless families. The persecution of men began after WWII when the media portrayed responsible men, men who made sacrifices and supported families, as emasculated, mocking them, mocking the life of a "normal" man, portraying it as being shallow and unfulfilling. The movie Rebel Without A Cause embodies this perfectly. This fabricated portrayal of an empty fatherhood aroused feelings of boredom and discontent in young men who did not like what they had to look forward to. Hugh Hefner's motto of having ties to no one, including woman and family, became the popular manly ideal. This was still the 1950's. If society considered it unmanly to provide for one's wife and family, or even start one, normal, plain women were screwed. The male rebellion of beatnicks and greasers was prompted by fear of castration via fatherhood and responsibility. The female rebellion of I am woman hear me roar BS was also provoked by a fear a different one, of being left in the gutter, in exchange for Hugh Heffners more attractive, sexually active bunnies. Most guys are afraid of castration. Most women fear spinsterhood. Such is a fate worse than death for both. You know what followed in the 60's and 70's.

Since then, our society continually has two views of men: you are either a free man, a womanizing sex God who is a Chuck Norris protege - or you are the emasculated father who is literally drained by his controlling wife and whiny kids. Both are bullshit. Similarly, there are two views of women in society: you are either an attractive sex toy, or you are the ugly saggy-tit spinster, who if she were married, or someone's mother, would be a nagging volatile shrew. Also Bullshit. The true feminists, as well as the deranged psychotic man-hating ones are a mere product of this. But the heart of the evil lies in those who controlled (and still control) the fantasies of the masses in the first place.

These puppetmasters who support the psychotic feminists with their media coverage only do so, because they want to tear down those who pose an actual threat to them (fathers who love and stand by their families), not because they really care about justice or women's freedom. They want to make such men afraid to have families of their own, afraid to be responsible, to love fully, afraid to stand and fight. What these fools (the psychofeminists) don't realize is they are playing right into the traps of the tyrants they claim to oppose. Once they are done destroying the will of the only men with the courage to fight for those they love, there will be no men to protect their rights. I say it as a feminist: women's freedom depends on the state of civilization, and the support of good men. It always has and will. No amount of protesting, no law is going to change that.

I apologize for the mouthful. But it seems like you've never been exposed to a real feminist (the "men are pigs" psychos are a VERY LOUD minority, who are definitely more fun to rant about than us boring feminists who are straight, have boyfriends and love their dads), and think you know what real feminism stands for. Usually, we hold a lot more in common than we realize, but don't have the humility to want to listen to the other side. Oftentimes as soon as men such as yourself discover that I am female, or god forbid a feminist, that I can't be reasoned with or care deeply about their perspective.

I am often busy, but would gladly like to hear your response, as I believe you did want to get a dialog going. (Unless you are the male version of the psycho-feminist. I sincerely hope you arent.) :(

My first response to her:

Hi,

I can do a dialog, no problem, and I will address your points but if I may break this down a little bit to make it more manageable by asking you a question.

I realize you are young, but are you prominent in any organization or are you on the front lines of feminist thought promoting your views?

Sincerely,
Mark

Her response:

Hello again! I apologize for the late response - it is Thanksgiving here and I have been spending time with my family for the past week.

As for my "prominence" there is no official feminist organization that I see any need to join as of now, unless one counts forums and various websites and college groups. Honestly, I think one can just as much if not more accomplished through making films that reach a general audience, than by stopping traffic with a mob of annoying protesters - but that is my personal approach.

Yes, I am young, still in college, and have yet to make my grand contribution to humanity. I am not a public speaker or a politician. But I am a storyteller, and can thus reach just as many people through my work.

My response:

Hello again Jen,

I was beginning to think that you had forgotten about me.

Your answer was what I thought it would be. You're an interested individual, right? However, you're not a member of an organisation or on the head of N.O.W. I receive emails from many people who complain that I only attack the radicals and that I don't consider the "real feminists", to use you own term, but when I probe further then I find that they are people who have normal jobs and who don't push the field of feminism or steer its course.

I am not going to ask you introspect and ask you why you consider yourself to be the standard to be measured against for ideological pureness. In short, why do you consider yourself to be the "real feminist" when you are not prominent in the movement and the radicals are the ones behind the wheel? Doesn't it make more logical sense to call these feminists the "real ones"?

Sincerely,
Mark

Her response:

Unlike most movements, feminism is a loose collection of individuals. To think there is but one ruling dogma or only a few key feminists whom we all follow like sheep is outdated. Maybe a couple of older feminists, who mind you are starting to die off - but most feminists that I know, and virtually all feminists of my generation are not man-haters. Feminists do hold one thing in common: we believe that women are as fully human as men and should not be disrespected or poorly treated on the sole grounds that they are "women and therefore inferior".

Many of my ideas come from my mentors - who share my core values and HAVE made contributions to feminist thought. When I asked my mentors what it means to be a feminist, they told me what I am telling you now. As in any industry, those with the ability to succeed, those with the passion and dream to choose his or her own life, should be allowed to do so, man or woman of any race or background (provided they aren't abusing their freedom by oppressing others). Those who seek to punish and oppress men with such vehemence nearly always have some kind of emotional or psychological disorder.

Does Bill O'Reilly represent all conservatives? Does Michael Moore represent the majority of liberals in his country? They are certainly leaders of a sort and do have their following. That doesn't change the fact that most people on both sides think they are douchebags. That's why they are mocked. Likewise, radical man-hating fems are mocked. No one really takes them seriously except for the politicians who support them. Are Muslim terrorists true Muslims? Because they speak the loudest and kill people, I suppose that means they are the only true Muslims and the quiet family of Muslims next door who faithfully observe the five pillars are just a bunch of phonies.

Finally, because I'm guessing you will ask this:

Why aren't "real feminists" out there defaming those outspoken crazed feminists?
It is very difficult ground to tread. I use the Muslim terrorist example because that's a similar reason that other potential leaders do not speak up on public television and in the streets of San Francisco - because then the extremists will even attack their own. Lots of feminists (particularly younger ones) for this reason are quiet and reserved about their more relaxed (but still feminist) views. Instead, you will hear mostly from the trained apprentices of past extremists. Many people want to be leaders, or at least make some contribution, but are afraid to go against the established order - or don't know how to oppose it without being silenced forever.

This is my last response to her:

Hi Jen,

Believe it or not, your message is almost word-for-word verbatim from what many others have sent to me on a regular basis. I get this criticism all the time. They say I can't pin down feminism because feminists believe all sorts of different things. Yes they do, and so do conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, black liberationists and on and on..

If feminism is free-floating and nebulous then there is no point in the term is there? It has to mean something doesn't it?

I read a lot of liberal pro evolution blogs and these guys rip into conservatives all the time. But I realise that evolution denial is a common trend in conservative circles relating to their religiosity. I don't feel the need to defend conservatism against these attacks by saying that not all conservatives deny evolution, because I realise that the criticism is legitimate and fair.

There is an indiscriminate attitude that predominates in many people. What you said can be made a stock response to any criticism of a group or ideology. What you are essentially doing, whether you realise or not, is shutting down debate and it's a bad idea. Being discriminate and generalising is the essence of wisdom, if you cannot find patterns then you cannot achieve any valuable or accurate macro level picture of life. Whilst feminist do differ on things, you can generalise about the views they hold. I'll give you an example. I can think of no feminists I have encountered or heard of, apart from an ifeminist, who would accept the MRA view of the wage gap (yes we can generalise MRA's too). They would overwhelmingly say that this is proof of ground yet uncovered for women and would be activist on this issue. Criticisms of this attitude and association of it with feminism, like in the conservative example above, is legitimate and fair.

Sincerely,
Mark

Indian wife abuses husband in front of son

ArgusEyes — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:09:47 GMT

This has been passed onto me by a good friend so I won’t do too much of my own commentary and simply report the videos which are on YouTube. They aren’t in English unfortunately. It is a 4-parter.

Indian Wife Abuses Husband, Son Witnesses (on IndiaTV)

Purushottam Mahajan was physically and mentally abused by his wife, he has videotapes of about 60 days of abuse, many men do not even have this evidence, some of them suicide!. The Police has not yet taken action on Purushottam's complaint against spousal-abuse, even after 2 years of his complaint to various police and other authorities.

Cherchez-le-Femme

ArgusEyes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:10:02 GMT

Cherchez-le-femme means “Find-the-female” in French. It is a term that I got and modified from Charles Krauthammer where he mentioned “Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif” (find-the-Jew) in reference to the Time’s Joe Klein who decried the odious attempts of "odious attempts by Jewish extremists . . . to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.". I’m not touching that one now so don’t even try, but ever the thief, I will attempt to crowbar this term into the popular discourse, by which I mean i will use it a lot, so remember who came up with it first, alright?

Before your brain drops out with my inconsequential wittering (hey, I’ve been away a long time), let me introduce this piece from the BBC, Poor women ‘bear climate burden’:

Women in developing countries will be the most vulnerable to climate change, a report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has warned.

The agency said there was a disproportionate burden on those women and called for greater equality.

They do most of the agricultural work, and are therefore affected by weather-related natural disasters impacting on food, energy and water, it said.

Regular readers will notice similarities to the “Greener Gender: The Greener Gender: Are men worse for the environment?” essay that I wrote some time ago, in which I criticised author Gerd Johnssom-Latham for bandwagon jumping and using climate change to server her ideological agenda. The exact same thing is happening here. Notice the middle paragraph in the quote above. “The agency said there was a disproportionate burden on those women and called for greater equality.“. Call me a fool if you want, but that sounds like a roundabout way to solve the problem. If an deleterious phenomenon is going to disproportionally affect a certain group of people then one would think that the first order of the day is to mitigate the effect, not to propose a social solution targeted at the group of people, people like this are meddlers and they irk me.

This is where the term “Cherchez-le-Femme” comes in. This is the phenomenon we saw in the “Greener gender” report and in this report from the UN. People with an agenda are extraordinarily adept at linking a lot of things that happen in the world to their particular agenda. Certain people are obsessed with Jews, and everything that happens comes back to the Jews somehow, it really is quote boring talking to such people. This is why I am skeptical about climate change. I will accept that it is happening to a certain degree because as I know from defending evolution and science on so many occasions, that it takes a little bit of chutzpah to go against the scientific community. However, as an astute observer said on the Dennis Prager show one time, climate change has become catnip to a bunch of failed “isms”. It is a ripe fruit dangling in the faces of various political groups, to be picked and used to advance their purposes. The imaginary female that will be damaged by the next big thing must be sought by the feminist and identified as a victim to be solved by the medicine they offer. Hence the reason they say “more equality” is needed rather than “stop global warming” or even “raise the standard of living”.

I must also point out for people who don’t know my views. There is a problem in the third world, you’d have to be blind to not see it. Women in many countries around the world have less rights, some people say “therefore feminism” whereas I say “therefore equality”. Contemporary feminism as a solution the the plight of women in the third world is a bad idea. You can look to this and other blogs to advance that particular case. One last observance on this issue, the executive director of UNFPA is Thoraya Ahmed Obaid. If you go to her bio then you will see her dedication to standard feminist causes. I have highlighted the instances of the word “women” in the image below to show this. Now, I don’t normally dig into people’s past but it goes to the central message. Ms. Obaid is clearly a feminists who is looking to climate change as the catnip to sell her cause. It’s sneaky and veiled and will turn people off of her cause in the end.

Mathematics

ArgusEyes — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:50:51 GMT

1. Teaching maths in 1970
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?

2. Teaching Maths In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 80% of the price.
What is his profit?

3. Teaching Maths In 1990
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80.
How much was his profit?

4. Teaching Maths In 2000
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Maths In 2005
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habit of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. Your assignment: Discuss how the birds and squirrels might feel as the logger cut down their homes just for a measly profit of £20.

6. Teaching Maths In 2009
A logger is arrested for trying to cut down a tree in case it may be offensive to Muslims or other religious groups not consulted in the felling licence. He is also fined a £100 as his chainsaw is in breach of Health and Safety legislation as it deemed too dangerous and could cut something. He has used the chainsaw for over 20 years without incident however he does not have the correct certificate of competence and is therefore considered to be a recidivist and habitual criminal. His DNA is sampled and his details circulated throughout all government agencies. He protests and is taken to court and fined another £100 because he is such an easy target. When he is released he returns to find Gypsies have cut down half his wood to build a camp on his land. He tries to throw them off but is arrested, prosecuted for harassing an ethnic minority, imprisoned and fined a further £100. While he is in jail the Gypsies cut down the rest of his wood and sell it on the black market for £100 cash. They also have a leaving BBQ of squirrel and pheasant and depart leaving behind several tonnes of rubbish and asbestos sheeting. The forester on release is warned that failure to clear the fly tipped rubbish immediately at his own cost is an offence. He complains and is arrested for environmental pollution, breach of the peace and invoiced £12,000 plus VAT for safe disposal costs by a regulated government contractor.
Your assignment: How many times is the logger going to have to be arrested and fined before he realises that he is never going to make £20 profit by hard work, give up, sign onto the dole and live off the state for the rest of his life?

7. Teaching Maths In 2010
A logger doesn’t sell a lorry load of timber because he can’t get a loan to buy a new lorry, because his bank has spent all his and their money on a derivative of securitised debt related to sub- prime mortgages in Alabama and lost the lot, with only some government money left to pay a few million pound bonuses to their senior directors and the traders who made the biggest losses.
The logger struggles to pay the £1,200 road tax on his old lorry however, as it was built in the 1970s it no longer meets the emissions regulations and he is forced to scrap it.

Some Bulgarian loggers buy the lorry from the scrap merchant and put it back on the road. They undercut everyone on price for haulage and send their cash back home, while claiming unemployment for themselves and their relatives. If questioned they speak no English and it is easier to deport them at the governments expense. Following their holiday back home they return to the UK with different names and fresh girls and start again. The logger protests, is accused of being a bigoted racist and as his name is on the side of his old lorry he is forced to pay £21,500 registration fees as a gang master.
The Government borrows more money to pay more to the bankers, as bonus's are not cheap. The parliamentarians feel they are missing out and claim the difference on expenses and allowances.
You do the maths.

8. Teaching Maths 2017
أ المسجل تبيع حموله شاحنة من الخشب من اجل 100 دولار. صاحب تكلفة الانت=D 8ج من
الثمن. ما هو الربح له؟

Curmudgeoning Around New Zealand

ArgusEyes — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:45:57 GMT

Hi all. Those of you who have been paying attention will know that I am currently touring New Zealand for a year, this is why the blog has been receiving no updates. However, I thought I should give the perfunctory shout out now and then to let you all know I’ve not driven off of a cliff or been eaten by a sheep.

Men lose their minds over pretty women

ArgusEyes — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:01:34 GMT

I think most men in the audience can think of a situation in his life where he degenerated into a pile of mushy brain goo in the presence of a stunner, It’s happened to me.

So here is a study: “Study: Men Losing Their Minds Over Women”. Didn’t really need to be done but it’s always useful to have some kind of scientific backing when dealing with people who have problems with reality.

The study measured brain function in 40 male heterosexual student volunteers, who were asked to perform a standard memory test in which they were shown a stream of letters and had to quickly say if each was the same as the previous letter. They then spent several minutes talking to either a man or an attractive woman and then repeated the test.

The researchers found that even a few minutes with the attractive woman was enough to make the students slower and less accurate on the test. The more attracted they were, the worse their results.

They also studied the effects on women students of being in the company of handsome men, and found the test scores were unaffected.

…

The idea for the study came from one of the scientists, who was so impressed by a beautiful woman he met that when she asked where he lived, he had forgotten his own address! He had temporarily lost his mind.

The one-stop wage gap video repository

ArgusEyes — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:23:09 GMT

The “Why Men Earn More” playlist on my channel needs more maintenance then I have been giving it. As we all know, the wage gap argument is the most common retort in any argument with a feminist.

In a similar vein to many creationist/evolution debates. Their claims are simple – there is a gap and therefore sexism. Whereas our answer requires knowledge and understanding of markets and human nature, the viewpoint of the feminists has won in the popular culture – it is the commonly accepted “thought” despite having little thought in it at all.

A subscriber contacted me and told me about a dialog he had with a friend about the wage gap. We have all been in situations like that where, afterwards, we felt that we could have made a much better case for our side than we did. Or you think the classic “Damn! Why didn’t I say that?”.

Here is the playlist as it stands now. I have Warren Farrell’s videos in there and I have recently added Walter Block’s excellent lectures to it as well. If you know of a good video on the wage gap then email or comment on this thread and it will be added.

Liberal Fascism at Pharyngula

ArgusEyes — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:44:03 GMT

My favourite blog is by a person I largely can’t stand. P.Z. Meyer’s Pharyngula has a post on a recent bloggingheads.tv kerfuffle.

“I've always rather liked Bloggingheads — at least the idea of it, with one-on-one discussions between interesting people. It flops in execution often, since some of the participants wouldn't recognize reason and evidence if it walked up and slapped them in the face with a large and pungent haddock (the right-winger political discussions are unwatchable, and it's always had this problem of giving people like Jonah Goldberg a platform), but their Science Saturday has been generally good. I don't always agree with the people they have on, but at least they're interesting and provocative. And Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer have been superstars of the format.”

Yes, the reason it “flops in execution often” is that it allows people on with differing views to P.Z. Meyers. The very same flop in execution applies to freedom of speech.

However, those of us who are adults can handle opposing viewpoints without throwing tantrums, and may possibly admit that what Meyers considers a flaw is really the biggest strength of freedom of speech.

bloggingheads.tv is a website that offers many views, although I can’t stand creationism I enjoy watching stuff like this and no doubt I would have enjoyed watching Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer too. However, they have pulled out of Bloggingheads because of the presence of creationist babble that was “insufficiently opposed” oh the horror! My first thoughts when I head this is that Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer are childish fools. Is depriving the site of their own opinion in order to curtail future creationist content a mature approach to the problem? If anything, this will give credence to the common creationist claim that they are “expelled” wherever they go.

I think that a creationist love fest is funny to watch, and my hackles certainly don’t get raised at the existence of such a thing.

Not even mentioning that science is a lot more decidable than political opinion is. Jonah Goldberg wrote a book called Liberal Fascism. I recommend that Meyers should pick up a copy if he wants to understand how his “liberal” belief system is not so liberal anymore. As should be apparent by this ridiculous post of his.

Natural Selection: A Machine for Making Almost Impossible Things

ArgusEyes — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:08:21 GMT

Taken from a lecture by professor Steve Jones called "Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right".
http://royalsociety.org/event.asp?id=4140

The proof for oppression against women: Still missing

ArgusEyes — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:29:00 GMT

This post garnered a lot of discussion in the comments thread, which I am happy to see, I started this reply to a poster named bob who makes the cases for why women are more oppressed than men are. These are oft-repeated arguments so I felt it was important to dedicate a new post to my reply.

“Women get beat, raped, and exploited more.”

Men are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime, if you’re talking about D.V. then some say it happens to men a lot too. I’m not going to commit to stats since I am not a stats guy but I’m damn sure it happens to men more than those paltry handful of D.V. shelters that accommodate males. Rape does affect women overwhelmingly due to the nature of the crime.

However, for both D.V. and rape the same answer applies. These things are both crimes, therefore how is this oppression against women? We continually push, as a society, for more laws and services for women who have been raped or battered so we realise that this is a problem. Consider a crime where men are more likely to be the victim, like violent crime in general, it is accurate to say that violent crime oppresses men? No it is not, since it is not perpetrated by the state, but by individuals on other individuals and is recognised as being illegal.

The important part is where you claim women are exploited more but you’ve merely changed the words you use. Women are oppressed, women are exploited.

Never a scrap of evidence on how. The nearest you came to it was when you said this:

“Look at Middle Eastern countries.”

We are living in the west, criticising feminists in the west, who complain about the west and try to affect legislation in the west, they claim that all these oppressions happen to women in the west and when I ask how, what do I get in reply? “Look to the east”. What a crock.

“Women get paid less, men don't get to retire as soon.”

You’re missing the importance of the retire issue. This is government policy which treats men differently based upon their sex. Why do we always restrict freedom of speech to the government? Because government is the necessary totalitarian mechanism of control over all citizenry, you cannot escape the government. However, if the bakery doesn’t want you to say certain things then you can always walk out, you can never “walk out” of the government.

I realise this important distinction which is why I distinguished between the types of oppression and state that the state mandated instance of oppression are surely the worst kind and if men win in this area then what is the point of going further? The things I pointed out involve government action or funding. Do the feminists have an example of where the government acts in this way? Lets see..

The wage gap is a common example. Does the government enforce different pay on people based upon sex? Well no, it doesn’t. In fact, there is legislation passed in 1970 (1963 in the U.S. I think) that says that companies cannot pay people differently based upon sex, so if this does happen then it is like in the rape and D.V. examples where individuals in companies are choosing to pay women less. It is against the law. Therefore no government oppression exists.

The wage gap is the most sheepish feminist line out there. You’ll hear it spouted again and again when talking about these issues. It seems strange to me that so many people view the world as being so systemically sexist through-and-through as to make such a gap so pervasive throughout society. Ever since I first heard about the gap I though it was B.S. since I am not inclined to believe such conspiracy theories.

Feminism has won the culture war, its effects and ideas are pervasive in society to the extent where people can get ostracised for misplaced comments and heretical thoughts. Yet despite this people are still such sexists?! Any man will know a number of women in his life, his mother, sister, aunt, grandmother. Do so many men want what is bad for women?

I don’t want to portray that I am simple minded to how convoluted humans can be, I know that nothing is simple, taller people earn more than others because people subtly prefer taller people. Will the position of an attractive person when compared to a similarly-abled unattractive person be better? I would put my money on “yes”. However, I honestly do not find the feminist line on the wage gap to be persuasive.

The economists I know do not support the mass sexism explanation for the wage gap, these are people who actually look underneath the underneath in matters of markets and wages. I have not seen thoughts which support the feminist line in what I have read in the works of Milton Friedman, Walter Block, Thomas Sowell, etc. I see again and again that the wage gap used as proof of victimisation is made by feminists and feminists-economists (effectively like a “creation scientist”) and other groups of the activist victimist mentality such as racial groups.

In fact, I would play the victim if I wanted to. Check this out.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_503DRRB.pdf

Those Asian women sure did a great job of breaking through that glass ceiling didn’t they? Having studied computer science, I can tell you that for all their flaws, the Asian students had a fierce work ethic. It would be an unfair world that dictated that the rest of us who had not worked as hard had to be raised on a pedestal to their level to close this “gap”.

As Thomas Sowell so aptly puts it, Asians always kill the yarns that the victimists try to sow.

We've frequently heard, and will hear much more I am sure if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, that women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes. Can you give us a basic rundown of why that discrepancy exists?

There are lots of reasons. Men and women do not work the same number of hours. They do not work in the same occupations. They do not work continuously the same, and so on.

You know, if it was really true that you could hire a woman for three quarters of what you could hire a man with exactly the same qualifications, then employers would be crazy not to hire all women. It would be insane to hire men. Not only would it be insane, it would probably put them out of the business because the ones that were smart enough to hire women would have such a cost advantage that it would be really hard for the others to compete.

There are lots of gross differences between men and women and other groups and some of them shocked me when I first started doing the research. For example, I found that young male doctors make considerably more than young female doctors. But, when I dug into it a little deeper, I discovered that young male doctors work an average of 500 hours a year more than young female doctors. Obviously, a doctor that works 500 extra hours is going to make more money than the other doctor.

One profound thing you said in the book, when talking about disparities between the wages earned by white workers and minority workers in this country was that there are differences between groups all over the world, so why should we expect different groups to make the same amount of money in the first place? Can you tell us a little bit more about those differences...

I think most people have heard that there are these differences, but I think that what most of them have not heard is that there are the same differences between Asian-Americans and whites as there are between whites and blacks. Asian-American families have higher incomes than white families; during downturns in the economy, whites get laid off moreso than Asian-Americans. Among people who apply for mortgage loans, whites get turned down more often than Asian-Americans. Whites have to resort to sub-prime loans more often than Asian-Americans.

But, most of the people who talk about these things leave out Asian-Americans because it really kills their whole story. Their whole story is that non-whites do poorly because of white racism. Well then, if you find that there is the same disparity between Asian-Americans and whites as there is between whites and other non-whites, that whole argument falls down.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/an_interview_with_thomas_sowel.php

It’s 4am and this is getting long. So I will end it there. I am truly interested in hearing rebuttals to my points here since I am interested in finding the truth on these matters. I have not heard the feminist come back with reasonable counter arguments to points like these. They usually make the claims and then these claims work their way into the zeitgeist. But as for not, that elusive proof for oppression against women is still missing.

O.K. Guys.. This is what it takes for the oppression against women to stop

ArgusEyes — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:36:33 GMT

Some people can believe crap that can make your head spin. Some chick (I honestly thought she was a boy until she spoke) is moaning the usual moan about how I said all feminists were a certain way and I cannot possibly criticise feminism ever because they’re all different. Yeah, the usual stuff.

It was the little exchange we had that was so delicious, I may very well take it down as an all time classic feminist line.

I wrote:

Yes, a person who thinks she is oppressed will likely become a feminist, and yes, viewing oneself as being oppressed will make one angry.

However, history is replete with people who deluded themselves into believing fantasies that weren't true, and didn't ponder their own fallibility or potential to be wrong. Feminists fall into this camp. Acting on faith with emotion is the cause of so much evil, it is in this way that the feminists perpetrate sexism and oppression upon other's heads whilst at the same time claiming that they are against such things.

If you can provide that final elusive proof of oppression against women, outside of petty grievances about wolf whistles or myths like the wage gap stemming from systemic sexism, then we can start to find some common ground. But until you do so then to decry yourself as being oppressed as a woman in the year 2009 is worthy only of contempt.

She replied:

Again it seems that you're solely speaking from your personal experience with feminists. you cannot say that all feminists do all these things you stated because you dont' know every feminist. this may be some trend you are writing about or w/e but to make broad blanket statements is pretty pointless.

i honestly dont feel like going through the trouble of proving the oppression against women but until the day where a woman can go out side and walk wherever she wants, wearing whatever she wants, no matter what time of day and feel completely safe, then oppression against women doesnt exist, or when parents start feeling safe about leaving their children with a male babysitter.
part of being a human being is constantly questioning your opinion and changing your opinion. i think its funny that you're falling back on to the "feminists have some deluded sense that women are oppressed" argument. ive heard it all

Hard to know what to say to that. I just left it at:

I wish you the best in your wait for utopia.

The Lies of a Female. Expanded

ArgusEyes — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:50:55 GMT

I made a somewhat quick post called “The lies of a female” which garnered a lot of negative feedback. It turns out that some text was missing and I should expand on what I meant back then, and what I still stand by now.

Original post is here:

---

Tattoo girl: 'I lied about my stars'

The girl suing a tattoo artist who left her with 56 stars on her face has admitted she lied.

Kimberley Vlaeminck, 18, claimed that she'd asked for three small stars but fell asleep during the procedure and woke up with a whole galaxy on her face.

But she has now confessed she knew exactly what tattoo parlour owner Rouslan Toumaniantz was doing but changed her mind later.

She said she lied because her father was "furious".

As I would be. It was a stupid thing to do. Why am I mentioning this? Because this incident made me think about how women falsely accuse rape on the same grounds.

Many times women use rape for some of the most flimsy and petty reasons. Such as:

Excuses.

On further questioning the woman confessed that she was spending time with her lover in his car near the Shanghumugham beach. She cooked up the rape story to excuse himself.

Getting back at family.

A woman was jailed yesterday after her false claim of rape resulted in an innocent stranger being arrested.

In an attempt to make her family feel guilty following an argument, Kerry Saunders invented a story that she had been sexually assaulted after a night out.

Revenge against an ex.

'It has been a nightmare and I would not be on this earth if it had not been for the support of friends and family. I would be six feet under.'

That's how Briton Andrew Tutty described the ordeal his ex-girlfriend, Louise Johnson put him through with multiple false allegations against him, including rape. Read the article here (Daily Mail, 7/25/09). Johnson was recently sentenced to 18 months in prison for her crimes which the judge called "lies of the most vile kind." "There was not a word of truth in what you said," he added.

It all started when Tutty decided to break off his two-month relationship with Johnson. She went immediately to the police with the fabricated claim that Tutty had raped her. He was arrested for that and only released after he had made bail.

And no reason at all.

"To this day, we have no clue why she made this up," says Bekele's attorney, Robert Flennaugh. While the charges were pending, Flennaugh had tried, as defense lawyers do, to come up with some reason why Clifton might have dreamt up a false claim—some motivation, a grudge. In rape cases especially, when it's one person's word against another's, jurors need to see some reason for the victim to lie, especially considering how painful it is to come forward with such a charge.

Clifton had once contested a grade from Bekele, thinking she deserved a 4.0 after receiving a 3.9. And she'd sent him one e-mail that seemed possibly inappropriate. But that was it, Flennaugh says. They'd had no other contact outside the classroom.

Flennaugh would have had a tough time raising doubts in jurors' minds about the accuser's motives, a fact that still makes him shudder. Had she not gone so far as to create the bogus e-mails, his client would likely be facing a possible prison term, Flennaugh says. "If she hadn't lied too much, where would we be? We'd be in trial."

I found these in a couple of minutes of googling.

The reasoning process that this young tattoo girl went through is very similar to false rape cases. When I read this story I immediately thought of some of the reasons I have heard false rape accusers cite*. In this instance, she was not accusing rape, but she was accusing an innocent man of incompetence that could have gotten him fired or banned from his profession (not actually knowing how the tattooing profession works, but follow me on this).

In response to a situation she completely negated personal responsibility and, in my personal opinion, the character trait of personal responsibility is more of a male character trait than a female one. In fact, when people say that males need to find their “inner woman” to become more compassionate, you should retort that more women should “find their inner man” and become more responsible.

Joking aside, this is not funny. Because of these unbearably petty excuses listed above, women who do this can effectively destroy a mans life. His freedom and liberty is taken away, he can be ostracised from family and society, he may be raped himself in prison and in the worst cases he may take his life. These are all possibilities that can occur and purely at the behest of an evil little narcissistic liar who couldn’t control her petty little emotions and decided to put another person to the sword because of her anger or her rage. I’ve known women like this, all that matters to them are their own feelings, they feel entitled to be the centre of the universe and inflict their emotions upon you, be it by pouting and stropping about and pulling faces, or going to extremes like this. They feel entitled to do it and they are the worst sort.

Why is this important?

There are ideologues in this country, and others, who operate under faith based delusions that women don’t lie about rape, or don’t do so in any significant numbers, and who are driving the political system. Look at someone like Harriet Harman, this person is a man hating bigot who occupies a position of immense power, the Orwellian “equality minister” who is rampaging through the system (whilst she still has the power before these bums are voted out) instigating her female supremacist agenda. Being the classic feminist, rape is on her radar. As is par for the course, more and more men need to be held accountable for rape. I.E. The standard of evidence must be lowered. This is an end run around the concept of justice and will only exacerbate the situation.

Harman doesn’t believe that women falsely accuse rape in any great way, or if she does then she doesn’t care. People who believe in justice and fairness need to stand up against this cancer. Some people are the bottom of the barrel, both men who actually rape and women who would put an innocent man in prison for rape. Our current system where a man can go to prison purely on another person’s word is disgusting and a system that lets a person who would try to deprive another of their freedom off with a slap on the wrist is double so.

We need to uphold standards of evidence crimes, we need to punish those who try to get innocents tried for a crime, to have the same punishment as the person who they falsely accused would have gotten.

*For news about false rape, one of the best sources on the web is the false rape society.

Holy Crap! Study that didn’t need to be done.

ArgusEyes — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:57:17 GMT

As a great man, Dennis Prager, once said. A study either confirms common sense or it is wrong.

Twitter tweets are 40% 'babble'

A short-term study of Twitter has found that 40% of the messages sent via it are "pointless babble."

Carried out by US market research firm Pear Analytics, the study aimed to produce a snapshot of what people do with the service.

Almost as prevalent as the babble were "conversational" tweets that used it as a surrogate instant messaging system.

The study found that only 8.7% of messages could be said to have "value" as they passed along news of interest.

Get out.

Victim a go-go

ArgusEyes — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:13:13 GMT

Thank You + About Me

ArgusEyes — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:02:33 GMT

Feedback: I am a failure, who is disappointed with his life

ArgusEyes — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:08:35 GMT

karlsmith00 wrote:

"your channel is hilarious. another example of an ugly guy who's dissapointed[sic] with his life, and then he becomes a "men's rights" activist to avoid any personal responsibility for being a failure.

you're a loser, and it's your fault. men have more rights, more than they should. but thanks for the channel, it's always good for a laugh."

This is a very good summary of people with victim based mentalities. They can respond to their personal inadequacies by attaching to a physical characteristic of their own being, by attaching to being black or a woman or a homosexual, etc. Elevating the status of the group that they belong in by accident of their birth they elevate their own status by default.

However, hateful individuals like karlsmith00, who have merely stumbled onto part of the truth, lack the ability to discriminate vise a vise the efficacy of a cause. A victim is a victim where their cause is just. If I can point out where a MRA has less rights in law and suffers genuine oppression in terms of reproductive rights then that is viable case, but it does not make him a victim in all avenues of life. When feminists turn over every rock to find grievances and to create victimisations out of whole cloth then that points to the moribund victim manufacturing nature of what the movement has become.

He also has a problem in understanding reality or seeking the truth. Evidence that I am a failure? Apparently this hugely ugly (in mind, not body) individual knows how satisfied I am with my own life. Never mind the fact that physical appearance is not important to men.

The fact of the matter is that I haven't made a video in a while because I am so busy with my personal pursuits. Programming websites, programming games, reading, writing, photography, planning a huge journey overseas, and much more. The whole meaning of an activist/victim is that they have little to their life outside the pet cause of political activism.

Google Chrome OS: His is better than mine

ArgusEyes — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:31:20 GMT

Do Not Want

ArgusEyes — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:59:31 GMT

Google's Chrome OS a direct shot across Microsoft's bow

Analysts said a key part of Google's strategy is to persuade software developers to start writing applications that run in Web browsers, rather than customizing them for a specific operating system such as Windows. "All Web-based applications will automatically work" on the new operating system, Pichai and Upson wrote.

I don’t want to sound like a luddite here, but nothing sounds more shite to me than playing games and using complex apps in a browser. I work in the field of websites so I understand how good they are getting with time. If it turns out to be good then I will happily eat crow but this doesn’t strike me as something that will take off anytime soon.

Think about it, is there a modern game that installs in less than a gigabyte of space? How about downloading that?

I will say, that one of the most important things to do is to separate the layers under which applications run. What is great about the web is that WebPages are written in open languages which browser writers support on the various OS’s, this can work with languages like Java and .NET which work under a virtual machine, but that has not taken off too much. Running from a browser will make apps that can run on Google Chrome OS also work on Windows, but the huge library of Windows apps will not work on Chrome. Let’s see how this one plays out.

The best thing about this is:

Chrome could attract computer users who want more speed and security than Windows currently provides. Google promised the software, which will be free, would boot up quickly and "get you onto the Web in a few seconds."

…

And the move could prove to be good news for consumers, since more competition in the operating system market, long dominated by Microsoft, could lead to lower prices and increased innovation.

Yes. Competition is excellent for users. If Google Chrome OS is quick and light and people want that (I want that!) then Microsoft will lighten windows and lower prices also.

Making a Monkey out of Darwin: A Rebuttal (part 2)

ArgusEyes — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:24:17 GMT

"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France.

Yes, he was such a Darwinist that he didn’t really mention it anywhere.

Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens -- all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."

If you followed that, then explain it to me in non crazy talk.

Yet a theory can produce evil -- and still be true.

Like nuclear physics – when do we get to blame Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Lise Meitner? Or, maybe, humans have always fought each other? Nah, that’s crazy talk.

And here Windchy does his best demolition work.

Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."

"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.

The idea that Darwin stole his theory from Wallace is a historically illiterate falsity. There is no truth in it. Darwin sat on his theory for a very long time and ran the risk of being snubbed to the post by Wallace so they presented their ideas around the same time. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?

Giraffes eat bushes and grass as well as leaves from trees. Has this guy ever seen a nature documentary? His ridiculous strawman about there being a cut-off for the length that a giraffes neck needs to be is ridiculous, are all trees the same height? No. Ergo, a shorter neck gets less food and a longer one gets more, ergo advantage, ergo natural selection can choose it.

Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.

Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.

Therefore evolution is false.

For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.

Complete inversion of the truth.

And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.

Sounds like a child doesn’t it? Scientists haven’t answered everything yet, whilst your made up myths have explained exactly zero. Also evolution is not abiogenesis and I stifle the biggest yawn in the world.

The most delicious chapter is Windchy's exposure of the Scopes Monkey Trial and Hollywood's Bible-mocking movie "Inherit the Wind," starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.

The trial was a hoked-up scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tenn. Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury. And William Jennings Bryan held his own against the atheist Darrow in the transcript of the trial.

In 1981, Gould had this advice for beleaguered Darwinists:

"Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism ... a kind of old-time religion on our part."

Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.

Some bullshit about a film only loosely based on reality, a quote mine and the faith card and we’re finally done. Phew.

When you see a “…” in a creationist quote, you can pretty much rely on the fact that you’re being lied to. Here is the fully quote from Stephen Gould:

But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment — a kind of old-time religion on our part.

But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a unified front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.

So he says the opposite to how it is being construed by Buchanan. I know how these things can work though, because I have messed up quotes before. He has passed on a quote that another has sent him without looking it over, it can happen to any of us.

The last line is standard, the creationists aim to being us down to their level by conflating evolutionary theory with faith. It speaks to the fact that they know their position is less tenable so they’re trying to drag us down to their level. Nice try but sloppy B.S. like this continues to render creationism the laughing stock of anyone but the most faithful who will gobble this up.

Also see “Pat Buchanan makes a monkey of himself about evolution” and “Old fossil "disproves" Darwin!”.

Making a Monkey out of Darwin: A Rebuttal

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:21:52 GMT

Well, this one's going to be fun.

Patrick Buchanan has written a piece for RealClearPolitics.com called “Making a Monkey Out of Darwin”. It’s a knee-slapping rip-roaring fun ride down lame off-the-shelf creationist claims alley. In short, the claims are:

“Darwinism” inspired Karl Marx
“Darwinism” inspired Hitler
“Darwinism” inspired eugenics
“Darwinism” caused world war 1!? (That’s a new one to me)
The neck of the Giraffe
Nebraska Man
Piltdown Man
The fossil record is rubbish
Stephen J. Gould fossil quote
Darwinism doesn’t explain how life started
“Darwinism” is a religion

Well, isn't that original? Let’s get dug in.

"You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."

Right, science as a procedure has created innovation that has completely changed the way we live. However, the people who do the work are humans and humans are flawed, a particular scientist will cling to his or her theory despite reasonable evidence that it is wrong because of his or her personal pride and cognitive dissonance. But, in the long term the theories are gradually refined or thrown out. The scientific method is backing a theory with evidence and submitting it to peer review, it is the best method that humans have derived for finding the truth. It’s a messy process but life is not as simple as wishing making and magical thinking. I don’t believe that a sustainable farce for an extended period of time is likely in the scientific community.

As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.

He is quoted above for two reasons.

First is House passage of a "cap-and-trade" climate-change bill. Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths -- or a fearmongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.

I am a very light global warming skeptic, I say “light” because as I mentioned above, I don’t think that a prolonged farce is possible in science so I make criticisms very very reservedly. However, I believe that in the global warming issue, there are two groups to the left and right who have emotional reasons for embracing or denying the theory based upon their own belief systems and how much it can advance or recede their agenda. It is a sure golden goose to those who believe in greater governmental control and environmentalists (many times the same people) and people who are the opposite – who believe in smaller government and who oppose the other side consider it to be a thorn in their side.

That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.

"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."

"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.

I should address the endless reference to “Darwinism”. Some evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins use this word often, others don’t like it. I am one of the latter. What does it mean? To put “ism” on the end of something is to make it a belief system of the first word, this no always accurate (I.E. “feminism” is not a belief system of the “feminine” – they often despise traditional femininity) but Darwinism would be a belief system of Darwin, which man or woman who accepts the theory of evolution would accept it as a reasonable term that they base their views on Darwin's? You might as well call me a “Newtonist” or a “Einsteinist”. We accept the body of work of these great people but we do not center our belief systems around them. A good example of a legitimate use of the term would be “Christian” or “Christianity”, the form is different but the idea is to base one’s life on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Darwinism is not an appropriate term in our modern times.

As for the substance of the above quote, I have a certain kind of distaste for such mud-slinging. To assume the superiority of one’s own race or group is a “Darwinist” inspired meme is it? I disagree, I would content that this is a fundamental facet of human nature. Does something like evolution or “Darwinism” lend a patina of scientific credibility to such ideas? Probably. Buchanan states in his article that a theory can be true and yet inspire evil ideas, true, then what is the point of his article? Because he seems to flit between stating that "Darwinism" is false to stating that it has caused evil (even if it may be true), I think he is trying to fling enough mud to make some of it stick.

I have decided to wrap this up as a "part 1" for now.

Bringing the sexes together – by denigrating one of them

ArgusEyes — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:33:38 GMT

Sometimes the letters from the luverly people who disagree with me make me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Now, since you do not believe in human rights (the same rights for every human being alike), I'm thinking you feel one of the sexes is inferior and does not 'deserve' the same rights as another.

I have not come across any factual, scientific books that prove the natural superiority of men. But I have come across a few concerning women. And one of them below is one that I feel will help you be more understanding of what feminism is TRULY about.

You seem like an intelligent man, but I just hate to see you put down feminism and claim it is just a silly woman-victimizing movement. Well, as a feminist, I can assure you it is not that at all.

The book that many feminists use to argue their stance is entitled "The Natural Superiority of Women" by Ashley Montagu. Now, I know you may already assume it is a female-chauvinist book, but it's stated in this book many a time that the book is meant to being the sexes together instead of widening the already gap between them. The author of the book uses only facts and science to prove how women are naturally superior. He also clearly says in the epilogue that he uses no personal opinions or rhetoric.
If you do so choose to read this book, you will better understand feminism for what it really is and not judge it based on what you think it is about or from what you read off of "feminist" websites.

I can only *hope* that you will read this book, I can't and won't try to 'convince' you to go out and invest a few dollars to widen your horizons and to understand feminism. Whenever you wish to read it is a good enough time.

Thanks for reading this.

The lies of a female

ArgusEyes — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:50:18 GMT

I have expanded on this post in a new post, I reccomend that you read that version instead of this one as it explain my point in more depth. You can find it here.

The girl suing a tattoo artist who left her with 56 stars on her face has admitted she lied.

Kimberley Vlaeminck, 18, claimed that she'd asked for three small stars but fell asleep during the procedure and woke up with a whole galaxy on her face.

But she has now confessed she knew exactly what tattoo parlour owner Rouslan Toumaniantz was doing but changed her mind later.

She said she lied because her father was "furious".

Link to article

As I would be. It was a stupid thing to do. Why am I mentioning this? Because this incident made me think about how women falsely accuse rape on the same grounds. Many times they

We need to eradicate the ridiculous idea that women and girls don’t cry rape when it didn’t happen. Why even suggest such a common sense notion? Well, because there are people who adhere to faith based belief systems, not facts, that say that women do not falsely accuse rape. The most prominent example of this that comes to my mind is the Duke Lacrosse rape case, where the young men were assumed to be guilty.

But feminists and left-wing activists will dismiss these studies as biased because men where involved. For instance, one feminist, Wendy Kaminer, stated that "it is a primary article of faith among many feminists that women don't lie about rape, ever; they lack the dishonesty gene." Anyone believing women lack a dishonesty gene never dated women. If they do lack that gene, then someone out there is performing miraculous surgery to implant that gene. What's so amazing about such statements is: they are not based on any scientific evidence -- it is a sexist premise.

John O'Sullivan, a left-wing social scientist, discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would fabricate a rape charge. Feminists themselves admit as much."

Law Professor and left-wing political activist Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect."

Duke Rape Case All Too Common

For tales of false rape accusations, one of the best resources on the web is the False Rape Society.

Men's Rights: The Core Issues

ArgusEyes — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:19:23 GMT

The Schools Vs. Boys

ArgusEyes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:46:22 GMT

This hostility to boys comes out of feminism, which is the belief that if you can't do squat yourself, keep anybody else from succeeding, and that way you'll look good by comparison.

I’ve mentioned Fred Reed before. Hell, I've probably posted this link to “The Schools Vs. Boys”. Written in his normal no B.S. style.

Taking a break

ArgusEyes — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:05:25 GMT

The last bunch of view replies expanded into more than one and due to personal efforts to go travelling around the world mean that activity will dwindle on the YouTube and blog side.

Hooray!

ArgusEyes — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:06:31 GMT

BBC: Labour slumps to historic defeat

Labour has suffered its worst post-war election result as it was beaten into third place by UKIP and saw the BNP gain its first seats at Brussels.

Labour's share of the vote at the European elections was just 15.3% - worse than party bosses had feared.

The Tories won with 28.6%, beating Labour in Wales but failing to increase their total share significantly.

The results have sent shockwaves through UK politics and led to renewed calls for Gordon Brown to quit as PM.

'Two-fingered salute'

The BNP gained a seat in Yorkshire and Humberside and in the North-West of England, where party leader Nick Griffin was elected - the first time the anti-immigration party has won seats at national elections.

And hopefully Harriet Harman will get a job she deserves. Like cleaning public toilets.

I’m not too happy about the rise of the BNP though, they are nationalists. But I guess that the backlash can be strong when it is against such a bad government as we have had.

Patriarchal Society via Socialization versus Personal Responsibility

ArgusEyes — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:47:15 GMT

Walter Block Lecture on Sexual Discrimination and Capitalism

ArgusEyes — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:31:36 GMT

The Dogma of Feminism

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:20:07 GMT

Hi BoundlessEyes, thanks for the video response. For those who don’t know, I contacted BoundlessEyes in the first place to see if she wanted to make a response to my video “what is feminism”. I did so because she seemed to engage in discourse to a greater degree than many other YouTube feminists, which is not difficult seeing as no other group seems as reticent to explain and defend their views.

There is a talk show host I admire called Dennis Prager who has a saying that goes “I prefer clarity to agreement” and that is what I thought we could do here. Clarify where we differ as opposed to just battling it out to win. To do that effectively we I want to address the most important points where we differ. These topics will be on patriarchy, on gender differences and on Harriett Harman.

On patriarchy: I do feel that your video lacked clarity as it seemed like you were less interested in explaining your position and more interested merely reciting dogma.

[see video]

Answering questions in this way will get your fellow feminists nodding in agreement but I fear it has less effect on the rest of us who haven’t swallowed that blue pill. Far be it for me to get in the way of your intellectual masturbation but could you please define your terms more clearly. Patriarchy would be rule by males, at least according to the dictionary that I know you like to use. How can a democracy be a patriarchy? We have had a female prime minister and we have women in government. Iran and the Catholic Church are patriarchal systems. Western democracies are not.

Far from being a solid concept the term seems to encapsulate whatever feminists want it to, and yes I have read a number of opinions on the subject and in doing so I have encountered raises the bar for decedent writing quite a bit. Take one particular view

Feminist writer Marilyn French, in her seminal work Beyond Power, defines patriarchy as a system that values power over life, control over pleasure, and dominance over happiness.[1]

This is not a rational argument. It is an emotional and religious one. And, to be quite honest, it reeks of conspiracy theory.

On gender differences: I believe that we should all examine the things we believe to honestly assess whether they are true or not.

Take for example the common claim that women use more words per day then men do. The numbers you will hear cited differ in each case but they always cite that women use more words than men do.

As a man I am not insulted by this claim, it is either true or it is not.

If we take these studies and add on top our understanding from other research [3] that different areas of the male and female brain are used in sounding out words along with our plain and common sense observations of our sisters and mothers and female friends talking more on the phone and in the office.

Given thus fact it is not a huge leap to posit that the actions and careers that men and women take could be influenced by our differences. I see an obvious nurturing advantage in women, evolutionarily programmed to aid in the protection of young no doubt. Would this have any effect on more women wanting to be nurses for example? It might not but as us scientific sceptics like to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Could we have the evidence that this is societally constructed and by whom and to what ends?

What evidence you have presented would get you a failing grade in any science class for lack of proper isolation of variables. Yes a girl who was raised by dogs, as some sort of proof that humans are a tabula rasa to be scribbled upon by a conspiracy of white males intent upon god knows what. Are you familiar with the phrase “non sequitur”.

You can’t shame me with such dishonest tactics. I have always held that humans are the product of a mixture of nature and nurture as I specifically said in the original video. It surprises me not that being raised by dogs will be a profound effect on a developing child’s behaviour. The difference between the sexes is a fact and if humans can be manipulated so easily then the question of David Reimer still stands? Let’s see the intellectual honesty with which you approach this issue.

That. Was particularly loathsome. Let me read to you how David Reimer described his experience.

"It was like brainwashing. I'd give just about anything to go to a hypnotist to black out my whole past. Because it's torture. What they did to you in the body is sometimes not near as bad as what they did to you in the mind - with the psychological warfare in your head." [4]

David Reimer is now dead, he committed suicide.

I think your supercilious little dismissal about being teased on the playground is a sham. And you need to be honest with yourself about how easily you grasped onto any little scrap of information that you could use as a plausible deniability mechanism to not have to deal with the obvious black eye that the David Reimer case gives to feminism. If you ever want to know why people like myself get angry at feminists then just think about what you just did.

On Harriett Harman:

Remember at the beginning when I mentioned clarity instead of agreement? Well this is the perfect example of a clarifying moment. I don’t need you to explain how the things that Harriett Harman believes leads to her actions. I know how she thinks and why she is doing what she is doing. People who commit bigoted actions frequently do so on twisted belief systems and believe themselves to be in the right. If I may quote Mr. Prager again.

Victimhood. A lifelong study of good and evil has led to me conclude that the greatest single cause of evil is people perceiving of themselves or their group as victims. Nazism arose from Germans' sense of victimhood — as a result of the Versailles Treaty, of the "stab in the back" that led to Germany's loss in World War I and of a world Jewish conspiracy. Communism was predicated on workers regarding themselves as victims of the bourgeoisie. Much of Islamic evil today emanates from a belief that the Muslim world has been victimized by Christians and Jews. Many prisoners, including those imprisoned for horrible crimes, regard themselves as victims of society or of their upbringing. The list of those attributing their evil acts to their being victims is as long as the list of evildoers. [4]

And to that list we can add you and Harriett Harman.

A woman whose mind has become so twisted as to act like women are oppressed by some nebulous patriarchal force whilst occupying a position of immense power and using that power to actively give a governmentally mandated superior status to women.

You have no excuse, from now on, whenever you open that dictionary and say that feminism about equality know that you are participating in a massive lie. For what you actually come to support in reality is sexism and oppression by the very definition of those words that you’ll find in that same dictionary. For in Harriett Harman’s own words:

'It is about saying, "because you are a woman I'm going to put you in this promotion".' [6]

If you read that and like what it says then you can pat yourself on the back and join a very select club of totalitarians who use their grievances to push for tyranny over liberty. Who masquerade under the banners of changing for the better but who in turn bring more misery onto earth. Who push their small minded dogma onto all.

The “What is Feminism” video encapsulated all of what modern feminism means today and the Pièce de résistance is you, a young feminist coming along and proving everything that I’ve said:

Feminism is a movement with a gendered name that claims to stand for gender equality but really is an activist political movement and sexist belief system which, in its worse forms, denies reality, suppresses women’s choice, tramples liberty, hurts men, infantilises women and fosters animosity between the sexes.

Sources

[1] Patriarchy: Encyclopedia II - Patriarchy - Feminist view
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Patriarchy_-_Feminist_view/id/5367497

What is patriarchy?
http://www.essortment.com/all/whatispatriarc_rhsf.htm

[3] Men and Women Use Brain Differently, Study Discovers
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/16/us/men-and-women-use-brain-differently-study-discovers.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/sex_on_the_brain/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419040/Women-talk-times-men-says-study.html

[4] The true story of John/Joan
by John Colapinto
Rolling Stone December 11, 1997
http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/inside-intersexuality/the-true-story-of-john-joan/menu-id-1427/

The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, Glenn Sacks
http://www.hisside.com/6_6_04.htm

Death by Theory? Wendy McElroy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120914,00.html

Told to Act Like a Girl, Carey Roberts
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0519roberts.html

[5] Why Do People Do Evil?
http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/why-do-people-do-evil.html

[6] I'll put women in charge of banks: Harriet Harman's plans to use equality laws to challenge macho City culture
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178140/Ill-women-charge-banks-Harriet-Harmans-plans-use-equality-laws-challenge-macho-City-culture.html

War and Peace

ArgusEyes — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:11:43 GMT

It was recently Memorial Day and an excellent blog called “The Big Picture” at the boston.com website features an array of photographs from prominent world events. It featured a piece on the Memorial Day and I recommend you all check out these amazing photos.

Some videos are planned and written over a span of a couple of weeks and some videos are written on the spur of the moment in a couple of hours. This is the latter. When I read some of the comments at the bottom of the Boston article I felt that at this point in the world nothing is more deserving of deconstruction than the foolish things I have read regarding the nature of war and peace.

Sebastian Munich said:

no war, no death

Hiram said:

Support the troops. Bring them home.

David says:

War is stupid.

Lin said:

WAR=DEATH

NO WAR

PEACE

Al Curtis said:

when will we learn???

Elisabeth said:

Stand for peace.

You get the image. To be sure, most people did not make such foolish statements but the attitude that these people have demonstrated can be seen in society, sometimes in a more elegant form, sometimes not.

For me, this kind of mentality is hard to understand since even a couple of seconds of light thinking can turn up problems with this simplistic way of thinking.

The book I have on my desk beside me is called “Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty” by Roy Baumeister. It has 431 pages and is only one of many books one can buy on the subject of human cruelty. Do you think that when you open it up it has “WAR=DEATH, NO WAR, PEACE” on the first page followed by 430 pages of blank paper? Hardly.

Life is frequently confusing and distressing but saying things like “no war, peace for everyone” is the lazy way to feel good about yourself, such trite sayings are not a respectable moral or intellectual position for a person to take.

War stems from the human animal, I am sure that for as long as there have been humans there has been war, and it is not a simple thing to turn off a fundamental part of us all. To merely suggest that “no war” is your solution and then to sit back and feel morally superior at the “solution” you have just proposed is to announce to the world that you are more comfortable in a fantasy world of your own creation as opposed to seeing the world as it really is.

To suggest that the elimination of war is the vehicle to achieving peace is to be morally muddle headed over the nature of humanity and evil, not fighting human evil does not guarantee peace but merely allows that evil to conquer us all when it goes unchecked. To be sure, the state of not being in war is the state that comes naturally once we have achieved peace. Not the other way around.

Was “no war” an admirable position to have taken in response to Hitler? How many Jews would still be alive if the pacifist crowd had their way back then? Would European Jewry exist in any form today?

This problem is characteristic of a lot of what I see and hear from the left, the lack of ability to think beyond the first stage leads them to the conclusions of being anti-war because of their simple mindedness. After all, war involves killing and death so since those are bad things then the moral path surely exists in avoiding war. But to allow the evil to exist may be worse in the long run than the death toll incurred from fighting a war.

Take, as an example, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These events led to the surrender of the Japanese in the pacific war and thus ending World War 2. Approximately two hundred and twenty thousand Japanese, who were mostly citizens, died in the bombings combined.

A simple mind will merely look at these deaths and conclude that this was a horrific crime to be avoided, and whilst I agree that it was indeed horrific you need to look deeper. This tactical action led to the surrender of Japan, an action that caused War Minister Korechika Anami to attempt to commit seppuku after signing the surrender document. The Japanese were a people who would have fought longer against odds that would have caused another people to surrender to. The mainland invasion of Japan would have been a bloody episode in the history of the world. But, by a display of superior firepower it was avoided.

Therefore it is accurate to talk about the moral clarity of the event, or even the moral mathematics of it. But this concept is reprehensible to those who lack moral clarity. Since people were killed therefore it is an act to be shunned. Thinking in this way makes these people feel happy with themselves as they pursue the path of least resistance to the opiate of mind numbing righteousness, by simply following nice feelings and words like “LOVE”, “ACCEPTANCE”, “PEACE” and “LIFE” and they can feel happy with themselves, even if their way results in more death and misery, because surely there can be nothing wrong with following your heart and loving unequivocally. I don’t pretend to have all the answers in life but at least I know that it’s just not as simple as that.

Let’s translate this to modern events. North Korea is basically a gigantic concentration camp, a backward isolationist fascist state emulating communist Russia from decades ago. Their own people are starving as they rush to bigger and better militarization, the most worrying of which is their recent nuclear tests.

The beaurocrats around the world aid North Korea by giving them time by constantly calling for peace talks that the North Korean fascists continually show no regard for being compliant with, they have abandoned the armistice that ended their war with South Korea and are aching for war. North Korea is an echo chamber of festering paranoia and hatred, and now they have nuclear weapons. I say this now that I think there will be war with North Korea.

There have been many people who have recognised the reality of the situation. General Douglas Mac Carther said the following to the US senate in 1951 on the US withdrawal from Korea.

“history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier wars. It points to no single instance where this end has justified the means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace.”

Gen Douglas Mac Carther to US Senate 1951 on US Withdrawal from Korea

Another person who had wise words on thus subject is a much maligned figure, who I will probably be criticised for featuring. George W. Bush.

[See Video]

Denial of the harshness of life can be one of the worse things that a human being can do because for their own narcissistic sake they enable evil to proliferate on earth. The price of present reticence could well be future massacre. The reason why America is the greatest country in the history of the world is for no other reason that it has done the most to fight evil, to die for the sake of others.

History tells us that human evil will exist forever, and that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Sources & articles of interest

Joe Biden Calls President Bush’s Speech to Israel Bullshit
http://americaswatchtower.com/2008/05/15/joe-biden-calls-president-bushs-speech-to-israel-bullshit/

Memorial Day, 2009 – The big picture @ boston.com
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/05/memorial_day_2009.html

Peering into North Korea – The big picture @ boston.com
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/04/peering_into_north_korea.html

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Battle of Iwo Jima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

What would you have done?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/30/japan.secondworldwar

North Korea threatens war as it tears up 50-year armistice
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6369797.ece

I thought of another good line

ArgusEyes — Fri, 15 May 2009 09:35:31 GMT

Democracy is merely the legal form of buying votes.

If it catches on remember, you heard it here first.

Claims of truth

ArgusEyes — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:36:51 GMT

To bolster my previous post somewhat, here is Matt Dillahunty from “The Atheist Experience”:

Hey, that’s a good line.

ArgusEyes — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:14:58 GMT

I received some email from a kooky guy who believes in a grand conspiracy of social elites, yada yada.. It’s the standard stuff you find all over the internet. he wrote me reams of assertions but backed up with facts and I wrote him a reply that I thought to be rather good. So here it is.

Hi,

When I say it is true that men and women are different. Then I do so only because the science and common sense seems to back up that particular claim. I do not accept the idea of absolute truth. I think it is a possibility that anything can be overthrown, no matter how solid it appears to be but if you one wants to do so then extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Feminists do not supply evidence that men and women are not the same, they only assert it. They've asserted it for decades without providing any proof for the claim and the evidence goes against it. This is why we can deduce that they follow some kind of dogmatic religious belief system.

The extraordinary claims that you make are merely asserted also, you provide no evidence for them. You say "this is the truth" just like the feminist does, therefore you are both suffering from the same mental processes. Same walls, different wallpaper.

So I choose to solidly reject your "truth". For truth with no truth in it is merely a delusion.

Sincerely,
Mark

Man, I am awesome!

Ramping up the Video War

ArgusEyes — Tue, 12 May 2009 00:25:48 GMT

Well, my “What is Feminism?” video has gotten a lot of views and 1menaregood1 has released an excellent video called “21st century equality”:

Whilst feminism continues to have trite videos about feminism meaning you can “be yourself” and warbling how it is a “state of mind”. Our site has the arguments and our side has the facts.

May more videos like this come.

What is Feminism?

ArgusEyes — Mon, 11 May 2009 01:22:47 GMT

This is about as intellectual as many discussions on feminism get. I focus on feminism in my videos so much because no other political movement is so demonstrably wrong and stupid as I believe feminism to be, and yet people still swallow the blue pill and whisper comforting myths to themselves as to the true nature of feminism. This video is a very condensed description of feminism as it exists now, in the modern world, there is not time to cover the history of feminism and I am speaking about the people who form the academic and activist vanguard of the movement.

The first step is to deconstruct the term “feminism”. When we put “ism” on the end of a word we do so to denote a belief system. So apparently feminism is a belief system of the feminine or of acting in the interests of the feminine, as is confirmed by the dictionary definition of the term:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3. feminine character.

This sounds perfectly reasonable, and the early feminist movement has done a lot to raise awareness of the need for women and men to have equal rights but it has been perverted, as most movements eventually do. Here it is mentioned that feminism is a doctrine advocating equal rights but a lot of people mention it as advocating equality. These things are not the same and words have meanings and it is important that we go beyond the beyond to examine how these philosophies play out in real life.

We understand equality, in terms of mathematics most clearly, as two sides of the equation being the same. But a lot of us understand that humans cannot be made uniform, we vary naturally as a species in ability and drive so when using the word equality, libertarians and classical liberals refer to the equality of opportunity and the non-discrimination of law. Whereas socialists and collectivists use the word equality to denote equality of outcome or sameness. Therefore the libertarian definition of equal rights is closest to what this dictionary definition says and the actual feminists are farthest from it.

The feminist stands for the socialist collectivist model, you can see this in the types of arguments they make. When a feminist argues that the fact that women earn less than men and therefore this is proof of discrimination, they never try to explicate whether or not women are making personal decisions which result in less pay, as Warren Farrell proves in his book “why men earn more”, or whether or not this is really discrimination. Feminists assume that the existence of a difference is, in and of itself, proof of discrimination and that is the end of the story for them.

This un-academic and simple minded treatment of a complex subject betrays the religious nature of what feminism actually is. It is a system of beliefs that are not open to examination, they are faith based. Nothing is more faithfully held to the feminist than the belief that the roles men and women assume are socially constructed, that is that the differences between the two are largely due to conditioning and that the main difference is physical.

As much as feminists will try to deny this, the wage gap argument that so many feminists make is one proof for the veracity of this argument. If you assume that an outcome in numbers is all that is needed to prove discrimination then you are tacitly admitting that the two sexes are the same but of course this is not true, any reasonable person can understand this through his or her interactions in the daily world. Male female difference is one of the favourite topics of comedians because it strikes at the heart of the differences between us and our angst at those differences.

The feminist meme that gender is socially constructed, whilst true in some, is ultimately a denial of science. If one is to admit that men and women differ physically and that the brain is a physician organ like any other. Then it stands to reason that men and women have different behaviours due to different brain compositions and hormonal balances and this is exactly correct. As a science geek myself I have read numerous studies about the differences between men and women. I know of not one peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that men and women are the same. Feminists simply do not back up their claims like their detractors do, such as Steve Moxon does in his book “The woman Racket”.

A good example our innate differences is the case of David Reimer who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision left him with no penis. David rejected his indoctrination and changed his gender back to male but suffered mentally and eventually committed suicide. The case was hailed as a success in the media but after the truth came out, Dr Money, who suggested the change, rejects criticisers as being part of the “anti-feminist movement”. [1]

Numerous surveys report that young woman want to stay at home, put more emphasis on the family, prefer male bosses, marry up to men making more than they do and have a different sexual nature to men. However, this evidence does not get incorporated into feminism because they already have their conclusion and they use evidence like a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination, this is a prominent feature of many other pseudosciences such as creationism and homeopathy. A good example of reality falling on deaf feminist ears is this extract from the BBC’s women’s hour program.

(please see the video for audio)

The outcome based view of the feminist makes them an enemy of liberty. Since, in liberty you have the opportunity to fail or to have the effects of your actions affect the standing of the social group you are in. Such things are reprehensible to the collectivist so the solutions they propose are always to push for big government intervention into all of our lives.

This is happening constantly, the latest event I am aware of is of “Harriett Harman” the “minster for women and equality” proposing an “Equalities Bill” which would force companies to publish average hourly rates for their male and female employees. In very recent news she will now use this bill to force banks to hire women.

'Sometimes we have to take scary methods in order to achieve worthwhile results,' she told a mainly female audience. 'It is about saying, "because you are a woman I'm going to put you in this promotion".'[5]

I must use brevity in light of the fact that I am physically shaking with anger and rage whenever I read the latest fascist proposal from this worm of a human being. But the next time you hear a feminist squawking about what whatever is disturbing their system at that particular time then just remember this, this is what they believe in and this is what they will do. Female supremacy, sexism and socialism bordering on fascism.

Despite Harman’s efforts to put women on a pedestal, one of the big myths around feminism is the notion that it acts in the interest of women. In fact not many things are more disdainful of women than feminism is. This is exemplified by a famous quote from Simone de Beauvoir in reference to stay at home mothers:

"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make it."[3]

The arrogance of this is staggering. Surely the person who should be acting in the interest of a woman is that individual woman. One of the actions the left performs is that it monopolises a group and pretends to be the only legitimate and allowable moral voice in representation of that group. A woman who subscribes to feminism is making a serf of herself to a particular political agenda.

Apparently a woman cannot choose whether to appear in pornography or to prostitute herself as there is a strong feminist opposition to such things. Why is this so? This is a clear cut case of where feminism acts to restrict the choices of women and as the Simone de Beauvoir quote alludes to, there is an agenda about what the feminists want women to be doing. The objection to pornography comes from being anti-male. Their problem with it is that women are being sexually submissive to males but there is also strong evidence that an increase in pornographic proliferation leads to less instances of rape.

The leftist activism of feminism is inherently anti-conservative. Old models of femininity are seen as being created by and for the benefit of men therefore the aim is to break the bonds between the genders. The example of the wage gap is an example of the disdain for women’s choices; another good example is how things such as Rape and domestic violence have their meanings skewed to include more and more women in their folds.

Does this attempt to broaden the meaning of rape help young women or hinder them? Feminism continues to exist as long as it has a bill of victim grievances to sell. By keeping young women angry and scared they ensure the next generation of young feminists through their paranoid conspiracy theories. I met young women like this at university not too long ago and they had chips on their shoulder that were at complete odds with their status in the 21^st century. Never before have has women had so much choice and freedom and never before have they been so angry.

The truth is that feminism is an identity which people with an activist mindset can slip into like a warm slipper. Their modes of acting and though are not too dissimilar to what one can see in black activism and gay activism and if a feminist was born a black man then she would be following Jesse Jackson instead of Gloria Steinem. Same walls, different wallpaper. These movements start with noble causes but as they succeed the membership is whittled away to the radical members who are left with the task of manufacturing grievances to legitimise their own existence.

The majority of people who call themselves “feminist” have bought the notion of feminism meaning equality and thus call themselves feminist without too much thought as to what feminism is, but these people do not sit on the payroll of feminist organisations or on women’s study faculty or try to pass feminist inspired laws. They are simply a rather convenient human shield for the radical feminists who are doing the damage. Feminists like this:

“The National Organization for Women-NYS stands in solidarity with NYS Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington in support[sic] legislation that will once and for all state clearly that violence against women must be regarded as a "hate crime."”[4]

Believe me, I have a long list of laws and proposals like this. Another good example is gender quotas. There is another name for a philosophy whereby you look at the world through the lens of sex, where every situation must be examined in how many women are in it and how it affects women. The name for this is sexism and that is ultimately what feminists are, sexists. Any man who says comparable things about women would be branded as a sexist and bigot and sent packing in short order.

So in short: Feminism is a movement with a gendered name that claims to stand for gender equality but really is an activist political movement and sexist belief system which, in its worse forms, denies reality, suppresses women’s choice, tramples liberty, hurts men, infantilises women and fosters animosity between the sexes.

Sources

[1] When Feminist Dogma Met Dr. Mengela - Carey Roberts

http://mesarchives.blogspot.com/2004/05/when-feminist-dogma-met-dr-mengela.html

[2] Bill set to expose gender pay gap

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

[3] Chapter 12: The Gender Wardens

http://blog.enlightenedwomen.org/2009/04/06/chapter-12-the-gender-wardens.aspx

[4] NYS Lawmakers Must Rethink Violence Against Women as a Hate Crime
February 26, 2009

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2009/pr_022609.html

[5] I'll put women in charge of banks: Harriet Harman's plans to use equality laws to challenge macho City culture

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178140/Ill-women-charge-banks-Harriet-Harmans-plans-use-equality-laws-challenge-macho-City-culture.html

[not referenced] Intelligence in men and women is a gray and white matter

http://today.uci.edu/iframe.php?p=/news/release_detail_iframe.asp?key=1261

[not referenced] Women's brains are different from men's – and here's scientific proof

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/womens-brains-uareu-different-from-mens-ndash-and-heres-scientific-proof-870849.html

Dennis Prager comes to YouTube

ArgusEyes — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:37:07 GMT

It’s about friggin’ time.

Now for some Greg Martin

ArgusEyes — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:02:17 GMT

There has been a lack of imagery and colour here recently with endless text posts so have some of this:

Read Hitchens (the other one)

ArgusEyes — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:55:56 GMT

When you say Hitchens then most will think of Christopher Hitchens. However, there is another prominent Hitchens who goes by the first name of Peter.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

He is decidedly more conservative than his brother and is a columnist for the mail and author in his own right. I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by his writing style. Check it out.

Comment: re: Thai king Under monarchy you are a subject not a citizen part 2

ArgusEyes — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:15:54 GMT

I got a comment in reply to this video that I feel requires highlighting mainly because of its length.

I commented the below on your VDO, so I might as well put it here:

#1 I don't like how you post your VDO w/o doing reseach and giving incorrect information. But I DON't generalize you as a representative of British people. I believe there's LOTS of good British people out there who take responsbility b4 posting VDOs.

However, I also disagree with those Thais who post aggressive responses as well. In fact, those who reponse are those who can't control their anger. For those who have more EQ, they have to take 1hour++ trying to write a long response to all VDOs posts in Youtube considering the amount of information we have in order to explain to make you understand taking our culture difference..
Sigh.. It's very tiring I can tell you. Nobody's going to be that free, so it's likely you will have more of impulsive stupid response.. Sorry for that I should say.

Like I mentioned before. A Thai person emailed me and said that they tell this story to many foreigners despite it being true, the story was also relayed to me by someone with a Thai wife so I thought I was on pretty steady ground in retelling it in the video. However, if it is not true then I don’t feel that the message of the video is any different. There ARE lese majeste laws in Thailand and people DO get put in prison under them. This is a fact and the substance of the video remains the same despite a minor factual error on my part. Like most of my videos this is opinion, it is not a facts video therefore leading with the weakest and most petty point is a debate fopah against you. It is amusing that people revel in such glee when they have a factual mistake to hold on to. I feel the joy people take, like you do here, in pointing this out is related to what little substance the rest of their argument, if any, has.

Oh, and I’m glad that you feel that there are lots of good British people out there, despite me.

#2 Please don't deny it. You marked ALL monarchy bad in your 1st VDO. If you only talk about your own monarchy in the UK then why you say so much about Thailand in your VDO, including putting it in the VDO title!???? If you take all references to the "Thai" out then I'll leave your DVOs all alone. Fair enough?

Why would I deny it? Monarchies are outmoded tyrannical oligarchies. As a libertarian and individualist, why would I support them?

I talk about Thailand because I had recently found out about the lese majeste laws and the YouTube ban and I thought “hmm, that would be a good subject for a video”. There is no hidden agenda here.

#2.1 Nope you didn't criticize our King but you criticize us having a King and protecting our King using our own "internal" law. I myself choose to have Youtube temporarily banned in my country in order to ask it to moderate its VDOs mocking & disrespecting our King. (FYI: the law is written by the PEOPLE through its democratic system, not by the King. the king's only there by name but no real power.)

This is why I am against democracy. I have no doubt that people are short minded fools that would cut off their nose to spite their face. When you let populism and mob rule dictate laws such as this then you have no one to blame when an evil king comes into power and then you find yourself locked up in a jail cell for having criticised him.

Remember this: Admiration is the emotion farthest from comprehension. Because you love the king so much, you cannot see that you are creating a rod for your own back.

#3 Yes, you have your right of free speech to say it, and so do I. No personal offence should be taken here either as we're supposed to have a civilized debate. Anyway, telling incorrect information (e.g., In Thailand, one can't stamp on the money, etc.) is not really a good practice of free speech.. Other foreigners will quote from you and there'll be no end to all misunderstandings we have everywhere now. You see, we have to spend so much time in answering all VDOs.. so it'd help if you do more reading-ups first..

Again you harp on this point. As if it makes up a substantial amount of my total argument. Hopefully all rational people can see what you are doing is petty.

#4 For the future concern, leave it for future. If our future king's not this great, surely enough that Lese Majeste Law won't be there for long!;) lol! If we're not happy, surely Thai people'll never fail to voice ourselves out! (as you've seen here! lol (* can't stop giggling here sorry) OK, serious talking, no system's absolutely best in all situation, neither monarchy nor absolute democracy will be 100% great.. I do expect something bad in future to happen, we'll have to wait and see.. But for now as I commented earlyer, the king's been the country only hope against all corrupted politician we've had from our democracy system.. So without monarchy, we can't guarantee if any other system will benefit us either..

Here’s a strange idea. Freedom.

If you have freedom then people who love the king can continue to love him and people who do not love the king can have their say.

Without freedom, like at the moment with lese majest, only one of these groups can have their say.

In short: Freedom allows all views whereas tyranny only allows a certain number, the freedoms allowed by liberty are a superset of those allowed by tyranny. In a free society the fascist can be a fascist, a collectivist can be a collectivist and an individualist can be an individualist. If the collectivist takes over then he will force all to adopt his particular philosophy. This is the base evil behind collectivism.

#4(cont'd) In fact, if we don't have our monarchy to balance the power, we'd have become like Myanmar where the army has absolute power. Things're not easy there. They king has his power cuz people like me and others here are ready to fight for him, so he's the only one who can persuade the citizen to share a mutual goal. In the army fight with students 10 yrs ago, he was the only one who can stop the fight

You need an absolute power to balance the power to stop you being ruled by an absolute power? Right.

PS. You seem to be more relaxed before the end of this VDO and I'm glad to see that. As I say, I don't want this to become personal or anything. I think it's because of our culture difference. Based on the Thai & Asian context, you look very aggressive in your 1st VDO that's why you got those hateful email. Those response like "go to hell," etc. have to be ignored.
Anyway, every country has educated & uneducated, high EQ & low EQ people. As a Thai I have to say sorry for that. Anyway, your VDO is better than some others that just express their ideas using monkey face & Photoshop.

Thanks for reading.

I don’t like the approach of videos like that. I don’t know what purpose is served by being wilfully offensive and obtuse without making a decent point. I offend people because they disagree with my ideas, not because I’m trying to be wilfully offensive.

BBC: Bill set to expose gender pay gap

ArgusEyes — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:44:04 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

That wicked and wretched woman Harriett Harman is marching forward as she has done in the past with her collectivist agenda.

Many employers will be made to reveal how much male staff are paid compared with their female colleagues, under a bill being published later.

The Equality Bill aims to tackle discrimination against a range of groups including women, the elderly and those from lower social classes.

It will also make it a legal duty of public bodies in England and Wales to address social inequalities.

The Conservatives have described the plans as "class war attacks".

Minister for Equality Harriet Harman pledged the bill would help to "narrow the gap between rich and poor and make Britain more equal". The result of this [bill] will mean that it will take longer to get out of recession and companies will be loathe to take on more employees
David Frost
British Chambers of Commerce

Ministers say the need for new measures is borne out by evidence showing that by the age of six, bright children from poor families are overtaken by less able children from wealthier homes and that people in deprived areas tend to suffer more from ill health.

The government had promised the bill, which will also ban age discrimination outside the workplace, in its manifesto before the last election.

Ministers also want to tackle the fact that - 40 years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act - women in the UK still earn on average 23% less per hour than men.

The new bill will require companies employing at least 250 staff to publish their gender pay gaps by 2013. If too few have done so voluntarily, the government will use laws to make it happen.

It’s the usual stuff. Equality really mean sameness. The government will be expanded, the power it will have in intruding into our lives and businesses will increase.

People like Harman do not change their tune or their blinkered views of the world. A demonstration of this can be seen in her following words:

David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, will tell its annual convention on Monday that the government too often sees the answer to a problem as being more legislation.

"The result of this will mean that it will take longer to get out of recession and companies will be loathe to take on more employees," he will say.

But Ms Harman said there was "no excuse for having unfairness when times are difficult".

"The economies and societies which will prosper in the future are not those that have rigid hierarchies, where women know their place and where you can't go forward because of the colour of your skin," she said.

"That's a very backward-looking argument."

The usual rot: The gap is proof of unfairness (it is not), women have their place (they do not, what age does Harman live in?). She bangs on about race like the leftist is wont to do and then sums up her ridiculous straw-man by saying "That's a very backward-looking argument.". Yes, yes it is Harriett.

As for Mr.. Frost. I’m glad that some people get it but in all honesty this country is fucked. i consider Britain to be fascistic. A good story that was sent to me by a viewer is this:

Thought police muscle up in Britain

BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution's principal tasks was "to alter people's actual psychology". Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people's psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years' prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the "global baggage of empire" was linked to soccer violence by "racist and xenophobic white males". He claimed the English "propensity for violence" was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were "potentially very aggressive".

In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political correctness.

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government's anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: "If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you." Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: "If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings." It took him five years to clear his name.

Page was at least an adult. In September 2006, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu. The teacher's first response, according to Stott, was to scream at her: "It's racist, you're going to get done by the police!" Upset and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed. According to her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence and then released without charge. The school was said to be investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher, but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: "An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form."

A 10-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge, for having allegedly called an 11-year-old boya "Paki" and "bin Laden" during a playground argument at a primary school (the other boy had called him a skunk and a Teletubby). When it reached the court the case had cost taxpayers pound stg. 25,000. The accused was so distressed that he had stopped attending school. The judge, Jonathan Finestein, said: "Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There are major crimes out there and the police don't bother to prosecute. This is nonsense."

Finestein was fiercely attacked by teaching union leaders, as in those witch-hunt trials where any who spoke in defence of an accused or pointed to defects in the prosecution were immediately targeted as witches and candidates for burning.

Hate-crime police investigated Basil Brush, a puppet fox on children's television, who had made a joke about Gypsies. The BBC confessed that Brush had behaved inappropriately and assured police that the episode would be banned.

A bishop was warned by the police for not having done enough to "celebrate diversity", the enforcing of which is now apparently a police function. A Christian home for retired clergy and religious workers lost a grant because it would not reveal to official snoopers how many of the residents were homosexual. That they had never been asked was taken as evidence of homophobia.

Muslim parents who objected to young children being given books advocating same-sex marriage and adoption at one school last year had their wishes respected and the offending material withdrawn. This year, Muslim and Christian parents at another school objecting to the same material have not only had their objections ignored but have been threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

There have been innumerable cases in recent months of people in schools, hospitals and other institutions losing their jobs because of various religious scruples, often, as in the East Germany of yore, not shouted fanatically from the rooftops but betrayed in private conversations and reported to authorities. The crime of one nurse was to offer to pray for a patient, who did not complain but merely mentioned the matter to another nurse. A primary school receptionist, Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking about Jesus in class, faces the sack for seeking support from her church. A private email from her to other members of the church asking for prayers fell into the hands of school authorities.

Permissiveness as well as draconianism can be deployed to destroy socially accepted norms and values. The Royal Navy, for instance, has installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate the proclivities of a satanist crew member. "What would Nelson have said?" is a British newspaper cliche about navy scandals, but in this case seems a legitimate question. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied to prison inmates who need it.

This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner.

Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together - and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day - they add up to a pretty clear picture.

Scary scary stuff.

Change, progressive, regressive, what?

ArgusEyes — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:34:51 GMT

Il Duce, Redux?

Trying to handle the crisis, the Fascist government nationalized the holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial securities. The government also issued new securities to provide a source of credit for the banks and began enlisting the help of various cartels…. The government offered recognition and support to these organizations in exchange for promises that they would manipulate prices in accordance with government priorities. A number of mixed entities were formed… whose purpose it was to bring together representatives of the government and of the major businesses.… This economic model based on a partnership between government and business was soon extended to the political sphere, in what came to be known as corporatism.… The Fascists began to impose significant tariffs and other trade barriers.… Various banking and industrial companies were financially supported by the state.… [The national leader] created the [New Governmental Entity]….[which soon] controlled 20% of [the nation's] industry through government-linked companies.… [The national leader] also adopted a Keynesian policy of government spending on public works to stimulate the economy.… Public works spending tripled to overtake defense spending as the largest item of government expenditure.

As much as that description sounds like U.S. government policy begun under George W. Bush and now greatly expanding under Barack Obama, the above passage of course describes the economics of fascist Italy in the 1930s, as summed up by Wikipedia. (A quick Google search produces plenty of similar summaries of "economic fascism.") Furthermore, "The Fascist conception of life," Mussolini wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

A disgusting meme is spreading

ArgusEyes — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:59:39 GMT

This has been worrying me for some time now. I have been hearing an increase in mutterings about “the failures of capitalism” and “the death of capitalism”, presumably uttered with straight faces.

What is this? Has enough time passed for us to have forgotten about the immense evil caused by utopian ideals. If not capitalism then what? Socialism? Communism? What?

From Rasmussen:

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

The poll is dubious do I’m not jumping off cliffs yet. There is also an upshot in people mentioning classic defenders of the free market like the Milton Freidman clip from a while back.

This comes at a time where America, traditionally the bastion of capitalism and wealth, has elected a president like Barack Obama. Now, I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon of screaming about this being socialism and communism like Glenn Beck seems to do every time he forgets to take his chill pills. What I will say is that the values and ideals that Obama represents seem to be the opposite of what the US was founded on. From JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” to “what can I give you”.

An adventure in intellectual vacuity

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:57:22 GMT

Let’s have someone who has no idea of what feminism is ask a guy who has no idea of what feminism is. He is right, though, to not subscribe to an ideology he has no idea about.

A government built on empathy will ultimately degrade those it seeks to help

ArgusEyes — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:44:59 GMT

There is a guy on YouTube called “Thomas” who I have been having an email exchange with, I have been posting my replies on this blog as I feel it is important to get other people’s take on the matter and to also display a reasonable person who debates well. You can see my previous responses in the posts “I get email: 'Real Injustices'???” and “Our governments stifle the freedom of men in order to infantilise them”. I present his newest email minus introductory pleasantries and signature.

YOU SAY THAT YOU WANT THE FREEDOM TO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICES AND MISTAKES AND THAT THE OPPRESSIVE SPECTRE OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OFF OF OUR BACKS.

Unless you are completely anarchist, you will agree with me that the implementation of laws that take away for instance peoples freedom to commit murder is very necessary, because the freedom to do such things severely stifles the freedom of people other than the choice making individual itself. In this way, a human beings right to choose to do whatever it pleases ends precisely the moment when its choice of action does damage to or stifles the freedom of other individuals, and most of us (including you and I) are very appreciative of a government intervening on our behalf to stop other people from compromising our freedom by stealing from us, killing us, hurting us, cheating us and so on and so forth.

Unfortunately the most privileged group in our society, i.e. white western males often seem to believe that government should only intervene to the extent that western white male (dare I say patriarchal?) freedoms and liberties will be protected from oppression, and that the oppression and hardships unique to a single given minority should continually be allowed to be practiced by said privileged group of white males.

We ban murder in our society because we consider a murderers freedom to kill to be worth a lot less than the freedom and security of potential murder victims. By this logic society should also consider male sexual dominance to be worth a lot less than the freedom and security of women and children, especially in the face of all the evidence of both the harmful effect of pornography on the human mind and on the enormous human costs of the sex industry itself. It does not, however, because of the utter lack of empathy of the privileged ruling class in society; a class whose supremacist ideals of individualism and freedom do not apply to the suppressed, but amounts only to the freedom of the oppressor to continue oppressing.

ALSO, IN COMMENTING ON MY ARGUMENT REGARDING THE COMPLEXITY OF HUMAN CHOICES, YOU SAY THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT ANALYSE THE NUANCES IN OUR DECISIONS AND IN THE LIGHT THEREOF DECIDE WHAT IT THINKS ARE ACCEPTABLE WAYS TO LEAD A LIFE BECAUSE THIS STIFLE[S] THE FREEDOM OF MEN [AND] INFANTILISE[S] THEM.

It would seem that you did not read my last letter that closely, so let me answer the above-mentioned (again) with a true story this time. Consider 19-year-old Maksuda. She is a single mother and has been a factory worker since she was 11. She became pregnant with her daughter at age 17 and found herself unable to keep up with the rapid production of goods. Her manager noticed her slow down and said that he didn't want to hear her excuses about being pregnant. She tried to respond but according to her, "He violently kicked [her], hard, in the stomach and [she] fell to the floor. [She] fainted." She worked until she was eight and a half months pregnant and tried to ask for a legal maternity leave but was told that there was no law for this in the factory.

I wont tell you how this story ends, but rest assured that if you as a government official tell Maksuda that you will not analyse the nuances in her decision to be in the factory because you do not wish to infantilise her, the expression on her face will not be one of extreme gratitude. But then again, you did say the freedom of men; not the freedom of women and children my bad.

Moreover I do not think that your very individualist statement that [i]f people want to degrade themselves then let them do it would not look overly humane in the context of Maksuda and neither does it in the case of the victims of the sex industry.

FINALLY, YOU SAY THAT WANTING TO BAN THE DISTRIBUTION OF PORNOGRAPHY AND NOT PORNOGRAPHY IN SPIRIT IS IMBECILIC.

This is, in fact, NOT what I insinuated. If you would care to look at my letter again, it says that I am NOT AT ALL [] proposing that we make it illegal for women to [] participate in pornography. If this was not clear I apologise and I hope that you will let me clarify this point. What I mean to say is this:

If a woman should really (really?) want to engage in double anal and vaginal penetration while simultaneously being called a worthless little slut reduced to the mere tightness of her genital openings in the privacy of her own home in front of her brand new SONY handycam, then that decision is of course entirely up to her. What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is of no business of the state - period. In the same way, if you want to smoke a fat cigar in the privacy of your own home, not caring about the empirical evidence in front of you, telling you that it could kill you in the long run, then that is also entirely your decision. But

The moment you enter a multi million dollar industry in which you get paid (as opposed to doing it for free) to do physically and emotionally devastating things to yourself in public (as opposed to doing them in private) for the amusement of white western males in order to support your children or a drug abuse (as opposed to doing it out of personal inclination), then considered government intervention is most certainly justified as it is was when the government decided that you cannot blow smoke from your fat cigar in my face in public and endanger my health or stifle my freedom from getting lung cancer.

To be honest, Mark, I do not think that our disagreements are as much about a clash of fundamental world views as much as they are about our very differing views on privilege and empathy.

Our differences are indeed about empathy. I feel that making political decisions on empathy is a fools path. Empathy is not normally universal, that is just not what humans do right? When we empathise then we do so towards some perceived oppressed group, and that leads to misery.

Your writing drips with a kind of Marxist demagoguery. When you talk about “white males” at every step then I think it’s not too much of a leap to imagine your mentality causing real oppressions for that group, and then what? Re calibrate, recast them and then they become the new victims? This kind of thinking has caused more human misery than is possible to calculate.

Basing systems on empathy and emotion is the worst thing us humans can do. It is a well know phrase that “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I don’t doubt that you are a good man but your mentality causes harm. Let’s have an example:

There was a luxury tax passed a while ago on yachts. The idea was basically eat (ahem sorry, tax) the rich. What happened? The rich stopped buying yachts, they would buy other things or work around the loopholes to avoid the tax. Sales of yachts dropped. Who suffered? The not so rich people who worked in shipping yards and providing services that related to yachts and yacht owning. So the emotion of punishing those deemed to be the haves, the emotion-based laws punished the types of people they are supposed to empathise with.

The foundational flaw of your argument is where you compare direct action which cannot be misunderstood like committing violence against another person, with an ethereal threat for which you need to make a winding justification for its danger.

People have churches and groups and can make their own mind up on what is bad for them, when you make the government enforce it on all people then this is tyranny. For everything there is a line, a pat on the back is hitting and some nebulous threat according to you is not the same as a tangible threat.

Also, ever considered that you might be wrong? I feel that rape has decreased due, in part, to the proliferation of porn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDshCXHBjQc). Think beyond your specific causes for a moment. The average life expectancy of a homosexual male is decreased about 14 years by their actions, compare this to the loss of life through cigarettes (7 years the last I heard). Now, in a system you want where policy is made on what people emote about being good for society. What is to stop a bigoted anti-gay group from oppressing homosexuals? Nothing, if you can make a strangled case for it then it might pass. In my system nothing like this can pass because of the basic freedoms that I would grant to all.

I heart Daniel Hannan

ArgusEyes — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:18:25 GMT

Also, via a Vox day interview (thanks liberal fascism blog on national review online):

VD:One thing that tends to confuse Americans is that the British National Party is not very popular despite holding what appear to be populist views on immigration and the European Union. Why do they enjoy so little support compared to the three major parties?

DH:Because they are, contrary to the way they are described in the BBC, a party of the far left. They're in favor of nationalization, they're in favor of protectionism, they want workers' councils to run industry, they want a massive state program of rebuilding manufacture. Like Hayek said about the socialist roots of Nazism, they are a national socialist party and the socialist bit is very important to them. Plus, there is a line, a very important line in politics, between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrant. And they've crossed that line.

VD: In a certain respect, they really are fascists, but in the Italian Fascist sense.

DH: Yeah. I think most of these so-called “far right” parties are on the left by any normal definition. It's a brilliant media trick in Europe to always refer to them as “the far right”. The target of that is the mainstream right. Every time you read about the BNP in the press, it's always prefaced with “the far right BNP”, as though they were like us, but more so, which is the opposite of the case. When somebody reads that, it doesn't make them think any worse of the BNP, it makes them think worse of the right. Which, of course, is why they do it.

It’s nice to hear that talk from a British MP bit it’s too little too late.

Porn Up, Rape Down

ArgusEyes — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:51:05 GMT

Ada Lovelace: The most overrated figure in the history of computing

ArgusEyes — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:45:25 GMT

AIG bonuses: Destroying your kitchen to swat a housefly

ArgusEyes — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:24:00 GMT

Yep. Government that retroactively has the power to punish groups of people that it wants to, to satiate the ignorant torch-wielding masses misinformed by the media. This is why you want to keep government as small as possible, as open as possible and as restricted as possible.

Female Bigots

ArgusEyes — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:34:11 GMT

People criticise me all the time for the things I say against feminism, they claim that I am a woman hater and want to keep women barefoot and pregnant in kitchen. I always retort back by saying that most of my critiques are against feminism which has erroneously been made synonymous with women’s rights.

But I must say, that the things I say pale in comparison to the kind of demeaning pap one can find in the mainstream media which is written directly against men by females. As Fred Reed observed:

An industry exists today in the writing of pieces proclaiming the weakness of men and the superiority of women

I present two such recent cases to you now. The first is an article written by Laura Bennett called “Exactly how are men superior?”, you will find it on “The daily beast” I will read the opening of the article.

I love my sons—they’re funny, sweet, and full of surprises. But I don’t understand how a species incapable of feeding themselves—much less hitting the toilet—ever came to rule the planet.

Last week as I watched the 44th male take possession of the most powerful position in the world, I had to ask myself how men ever came to be in charge of the world. How did they surpass women in status, power, and wealth? I don’t hate men, I live with far too many of them to survive day-to-day harboring such feelings. I just know that women are the more capable sex. As early as the age of two, girls leave boys standing bewildered in their dust as they speed along the social, emotional, and intellectual racecourse of life.

I am not dealing with Einstein here, just regular boys, and besides, I bet Einstein had his mother tying his shoes for him until he was in college.

My daughter, Cleo, was self-sufficient and independent from the time she could walk; my boys can't take a piss without my help, and even then they can’t manage to get it in the toilet bowl. My boys have been slow to walk and talk, impossible to potty-train, and refused to give up breast-feeding. I had none of these problems with my daughter. When Cleo was five, I came home exhausted from work and fell asleep on the sofa. I opened my bleary eyes to find her eating pizza.

“Where did you get that?” I asked.

“I called Domino’s.”

“Where did you get the money?”

“Your purse.”

“Did you tip?”

“Twenty percent.”

I can’t imagine any of my boys, much less my husband, taking such proactive measures against personal hunger.

What I am not going to do with this article, is try to debunk it, it doesn’t need it. If you agree with Laura Bennett that a fully grow man does not have the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old girl then there is nothing that will change your mind because you, like Laura Bennett, are a reprehensible bigot.

It’s not too hard to prove. I will use the tired, shorthand tactic of saying imagine me writing such an article but instead of men I would be making comparable statements about Jews or blacks or women or Hispanics or any other protected group, then imagine how I would be received, let alone whether or not I could get my article published in any mainstream media outlet.

It is sad that people cannot take the correct message from all of our P.C. madness by assuming the attitude that prejudice against any group of people is not a good thing. Instead, people have absorbed the real meaning of P.C. which is a culturally Marxist class battle attitude towards groups of people who are the haves and other groups which are have-nots, and the redistribution of power between the groups. In this way Laura Bennett’s article is politically correct, women are a protected group and men are deemed as a legitimate target of ire as a group with too much power that needs to be taken from them, either by legislation or through the whip of words. This is why many who are on the pro men’s rights side of the fence are angry, look at the kind of bigotry we have to deal with here.

I will also say that it is a truth that I have observed that girls mature before boys do, both mentally and physically, this fazes me not since men and women are not the same which is a truth that does not send me into paroxysm's of despair like it does to the radical feminist. However, young women who have been raised on the radical feminist memes that men are essentially big clowns find that such notions are swept aside by the harsh mistress of reality as they enter careers where men turn out to be ambitious, resourceful and competitive. How does Laura Bennett figure that young immature boys will usually be the ones ruling the world? Answer: They grow up.

The second article I want to present to you is called “This mess was made by men. Now let the women have their say” and is written by Ruth Sunderland for the Guardian.

There was no shortage of women at the gathering of the global elite in Davos this year. It's just that most of them were either delegates' wives, there to enjoy the skiing at the Swiss mountain resort while their menfolk got on with the serious business of mending the world economy, or upmarket usherettes dressed in smart, air-hostess-style blue uniforms, helping people find their seats.

The heavy-hitting women present? There was a handful, including Angela Merkel, the German leader, and Valerie Jarrett, who came as Barack Obama's representative. Skim the handbook containing the names of the invitees and you had to pass 20 men before coming to the first woman, who just happened to be Princess Inaara, Her Highness the Begum Aga Khan. On the abridged list of about 170 business leaders, I counted five women. As a delegate put it: "Men in well-cut suits still come first at Davos."

Does it matter that women are not getting on to the guest list of the biggest male ego-thon on the planet? After all, most females of sound mind would far rather be anywhere else. But the truth is that it does. It sure does.

The big theme at this year's World Economic Forum (WEF) was "Shaping the Post-Crisis World". The idea that that can be achieved while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance and shows that the male Davos elite remains mired in its own preening self-regard and complacency. They have wrecked the world economy, but seem oblivious to the idea they may not be the best people to rebuild it. Ignoring the contribution women can make is ridiculous at any time, but how much more so when there is a clear need to reflect on the macho, tooth- and-claw brand of capitalism that caused the crunch in the first place.

I have a certain kind of contempt for those who will introduce their pet cause into situations that don’t need it. These are the actions of a fundamentalist. Also, the base assumptions that men are so inherently self-interested and bad that they will exclude women as a matter of course unless women are present, is projection on behalf of the author. Ruth Sunderland is the one who is displaying the breathtaking arrogance of self-regard here.

My response to Ruth Sunderland is the same response that I give whenever a feminist claims that we should increase the numbers of women in whatever field they’re talking about that day, be it computer science or politics, my reaction remains the same. If we “put” women into roles then we are doing so according to ideology, where someone at the top is deeming what fields need women and how we should insert them. This is totalitarianism which runs the gamut from suggestion to coercion to outright tyranny such as the case in Norway where companies which don’t have a 40% of the board of directors be female, can face closure. I love freedom, which included, by necessity, the freedom to choose the career you want, if women don’t want to be in the field of economics then who are we to tell them they need to be, or to castigate men for choosing to be in that field? Does Ruth Sunderland think that by coercing women into this field then we will be in a better situation to deal with a crisis?

I am portrayed as being an extremist a lot of the time, but it needs to be said that a lot of what I address is reactionary. That is, that I need to spend the time refuting the bigoted words of people such as the two authors I have been discussing here. This can range from large scale assaults in the law and media to small scale assaults such being confronted by a young woman at a party who feels that she can partake in limitless man-bashing in front of a complete stranger. Men’s rights activists are here as a response to the man haters who are, by far, worse.

America, you’ve come a long way baby

ArgusEyes — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:20:52 GMT

From Charles Krauthammer’s article Bonfire of the Trivialities.

A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of (a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.

That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone. If Bill Gates were to pay these AIG bonuses every year for the next 100 years, he'd still be left with more than half his personal fortune.

For this we are going to poison the well for any further financial rescues, face the prospect of letting AIG go under (which would make the Lehman Brothers collapse look trivial) and risk a run on the entire world financial system?

Even worse are the clever schemes being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax. The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. We're going to overturn that for $165 million?

Moore blames women for 'banal' TV

ArgusEyes — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:36:59 GMT

This one is a blast from the past. I saved this link a long time ago and just came upon it whilst cleaning out my archives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6634255.stm

British TV standards are deteriorating because the BBC is "run by women", astronomer Sir Patrick Moore has said.

The Sky at Night host also described female newsreaders as "jokey" and called for separate channels to cater for the needs of the different sexes.

"I think it may eventually happen," the 84-year-old told the Radio Times.

A BBC spokesman described Sir Patrick as being one of TV's best-loved figures and said his "forthright" views were "what we all love about him".

The presenter said: "The trouble is the BBC now is run by women and it shows soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn't have had that in the golden days.

"I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching
Sir Patrick Moore

"I would like to see two independent wavelengths - one controlled by women, and one for us, controlled by men."

He claimed that interesting programmes were screened too late at night, and said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than appear on Celebrity Big Brother. And asked about his favourite series, Sir Patrick said he no longer enjoyed certain programmes because of their modern storylines.

"I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching."

Sir Patrick appears in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest-serving TV presenter, having appeared on his show about astronomy since 1957.

Sir Patrick Moore is an eccentric British astronomer. I mean, just look at the picture. Any man who wears a monocle is A-OK on my books, all he needs to complete the picture is a pipe and we’d be set.

This post is mostly something funny from a fellow curmudgeon. I am not going to hang my cap on Moores views as I stopped watching TV years ago so I don’t know what it is like now – probably crap.

What’s to say?

ArgusEyes — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:14:02 GMT

I receive this comment on my “the problems with feminism” video.

The little fat man in the video is in indonesia correct? Dont forget costa rica boys I hear there is open child sexual slavery there you can destroy lives and defend your position. Piss on you Mark, I have argued with you enough to know your just a fucking pedophile, I see hundreds of you guys every year, and your all fat? how come all you child molesters look the same? I dare you to not delete this, I know you will, you cant stand the light of day. I hope you get extradited.

From wlaaaaa. A long time troll.

John Simpson - Men’s Group The Movie…What Lies in the Hearts of Men (Pendulum Effect Ep6 Available)

ArgusEyes — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:59:58 GMT

Cross posted from equalism activism.

I’m really happy to have on the show today John Simpson. John is one of those unique guests that makes it such a pleasure to host the Pendulum Effect. He is an award winning creative film producer with over twenty years experience working in the performing arts.

John’s film productions have been screened at the Montreal International film festivals, the Palm Springs film festival, Sydney Film Fest, World of Woman Festival, Algarve Film Festival and Tropfest 2004.

Early in 2007 he launched TITAN VIEW to bring important Australian films to Australian and international audiences. More information can be found on that venture at www.titanview.com

John got involved recently with the film The Jammed, which explores human trafficking and illegal prostitution, helping to guarantee the film would be seen by a large public audience.

Turning from a film focusing on the lives of a group of women to one involving a group of men, he is the producer and co creator of the powerful new Australian film “Men’s Group” that was released in 2008. The film bears the tagline “All around the world men are gathering in groups to talk. What is going on?”

This important film, which we’ll discuss with John shortly, received a plethora of awards, including official selection at 2008 film festivals in warsaw, Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Sydney and Melbourne as well as the winner of the prestigious Digispaa best film award. insidefilm awarded the movie best script, best actor and best film awards. It was the higest Scoring Australian Feature Film at the 2008 Sydney Film Festival (as voted by the audience)

The Herald sun said about this film “group gives a male community a chance to speak”, while infilm.com reported “With an emphasis on interesting characters and heartfelt performances, Men’s Group is a compelling drama that wields an emotional impact very few features this year - or any other year - can match.”

You can learn more about the film at www.mensgroupthemovie.com.

You can get the latest show by:

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

A feminists response to men’s suffering: “You brought it on yourselves”

ArgusEyes — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:25:24 GMT

I get a reply to my video “men are more oppressed than women”. I consider it to be one of the most important videos I have made since it succinctly makes the case for why I care about men’s rights activism and it is the video to which I desire feedback and rebuttals the most. To this day I have not received a satisfactory rebuttal. “Bri” has tried and has failed.

I know, a world where you remain a first class citizen no matter where you go, people take you more seriously, you get paid more for the same job, people don't soften their tone because they think you are a glass doll, and you are objectified to sex is so oppressive right?

Anyways...

Oh boy, Bri didn't listen to a word I said did she? Well let’s dive in.

"Men in the UK have to work until 65 to qualify for a full pension, women have to work until 60 and generally make less and have more paternity leave."

You're complaining about making way more for a tiny bit of extra time?

You’re going to see this a lot, it’s called the red herring and it’s where a non-related point is presented to try and distract me from the real issue at hand. Bri. Whether or not men make more than women do does not excuse sexist standards in law against them. In a world where we are to be treated equally, there is no places for differences in retirement like there is now and you cannot possibly disagree. So stop trying to be contrarian and grow up.

"How about the right to reproductive control."

You have one, and soon to be more. It's called a Condom.

Bri. You are a stupid stupid person. The field of reproductive control is about more than birth control methods. Do you think this is my argument? Do you think I am stupid? Do you think I am so stupid that I am literally saying that there are no birth control methods for men? Everyone else not intend on hating me and everything I say understands what I mean there. Women have more options to cancel their pregnancy and parentage, men have none. Fraud, if a man is defrauded by a woman and his sperm is stolen then does he get any rights or does he have to pay?

"How about divorce?"

The man is usually the cause. Read up on statistics.

What the hell does that have to do with anything. This is starting to sound like an illogical overly emotional tirade from a bigot and a man hater.

"A man is more likely to be convicted and convicted for longer periods of time than a woman for a similar crime, like murder."

You did this to yourselves being the blood-letters of the world that males are.

Is there any part of this filthy piece of hate that isn’t a logical fallacy. Yet again, I must ask, what is the point. All men must suffer because men on average are more violent? I guess the idea of equality is well and truly out of the window is it?

"Health spending, for every £1 spend on men’s health care, £8 is spent on women’s health care [3]."

Guys are afraid to go to the doctor, so a not as big storm is brought up and brought to attention. Again, did this to yourselves.

What a kind soul you are. Health care spending has nothing to do with “going to the doctor”. This is spending on health issues and disease. Is there a brain in your fucking skull?

"We as a society should abandon the feminist hegemony and adopt men’s rights activism as a tool to reach true equality in law. "

We already have, and it has led to the screwed up world we live in now, and the most inhumane atrocities committed ever in human history.

Ever notice the countries where women have little to no involvement due to oppression, the true oppression, are in the shitter? Only when women started having a say did we as people become more civilized and peaceful, interrupting a males brutal rule.

You did this to yourselves, and now you are paying up.

Ah, so you subscribe to the “revenge” school of feminism do you?

Even thought the men who would have “done it” are dead or old now and you young men who exist now are largely sympathetic to feminism and women’s rights. Doesn’t matter, we deserve hell because we are men, which is really the attitude that shines through in your “writing”. Bigotry like this is scary to behold.

Murderous boys who target girls and women

ArgusEyes — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:42:26 GMT

I have criticised many feminists for neglecting to mention the evils that women have committed in the past. So I feel I should say that I condemn in the strongest terms, the massacres that are primarily committed against young girls by boys in school shootings. Unlike many ideologues, I will not try to defend the actions of people in “my group” there is no group here, I am an individualist, not a victim advocate, so I must say that I wish this kid was show as soon as possible, I wish the police had shot him before he could harm a single person. But wishing does not make it so.

The most recent event is, of course, the massacre in Germany. But they go back as well, a notable example was the massacre in Nickel Mines, Pa.

"The predominant pattern in school shootings of the past three decades is that girls are the victims," says Katherine Newman, a Princeton University sociologist whose recent book examines the roots of "rampage" shootings in rural schools.

Dr. Newman has researched 21 school shootings since the 1970s. Though it's impossible to know whether girls were randomly victimized in those cases, she says, "in every case in the US since the early 1970s we do note this pattern" of girls being the majority of victims.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1004/p01s01-usgn.html

These guys are losers and scum, they are evil. There are problems that beset the sexes, men are more likely to suffer mental diseases and conditions, men are the causes of most violence. I do not wish to hide from reality behind the veil of faithful belief, reality is there to be seen by those with unburdened eyes.

Laura Bennett says more stultifyingly stupid things

ArgusEyes — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:13:36 GMT

Laura Bennett, who wrote a ridiculous piece entitled “When Did My 13-Year-Old Son Become a 'Player?'” excretes another hilarious piece that demonstrates that she seems to have problems with the concept that boys grow up and, you know, get more mature and smarter.

I’m just having trouble understanding how the little boy who hid between my legs underneath my skirt became interested in someone else’s skirt.

Source: Laura Bennett http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-01/when-did-my-13-year-old-son-become-a-player/

Sure you’re having problems with it Laura, you don’t seem to be too bright. People interested in more mental suicide should consult her previous work http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-01/when-did-my-13-year-old-son-become-a-player/

Sure you’re having problems with it Laura, you don’t seem to be too bright. People interested in more mental suicide should consult her previous work “Exactly How Are Men Superior?”

I love my sons—they’re funny, sweet, and full of surprises. But I don’t understand how a species incapable of feeding themselves—much less hitting the toilet—ever came to rule the planet.

Source: Laura Bennett http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-29/exactly-how-are-men-superior/

Yep. There’s not really any intellectual condemnation here. Let’s just laugh at the stupidity on display.

Laura, you appear to be an idiot. A better article could be written by your five year old son, please keep to the cognitive field of fashion and stop writing.

P.S. The latter article is due to be decimated in an upcoming podcast piece and video.

Nice guy gets an update

ArgusEyes — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:18:50 GMT

The niceguy forum is one of the popular forums regarding men's rights and anti-feminism on the internet. They've recently revamped themselves so maybe you will want to check it out.

http://www.the-niceguy.com/

Charles Corry - Legalized Sexism & Domestic Violence Against Men + Why the name Pendulum Effect?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:22:01 GMT

Cross posted from equalism activism.

On today’s show I interview Dr. Charles Corry, President of the Equal Justice Foundation and founder of Domestic Violence against men in Colorado.

We also feature news and commentary in the fields of gender and equalism from our regular pundit Mark Overley. Mark discusses the rationale and background behind the term “Pendulum Effect.”

Mark, who runs the blog True-equality.net, is an English men’s rights activist who achieved notoriety by making videos on men’s rights issues for youtube, where he is known as ArgusEyes.

Dr. Charles Corry is a geophysicist and scientific consultant, as well as the founder of Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado and President of the Equal Justice Foundation.

Dr. Corry is a fellow of the Geological Society of America and Board Member of the Colorado Springs Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

He is a former Research Associate for the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a former associate professor of geophysics at Texas A&M university and the University of Missouri and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps.

Dr. Corry is the author of books, research papers, reports, as well as essays on topics like the evolution of society, courts and civil liberties, censorship and domestic violence.

An individual with a fasincating and varied career, you can learn more about Dr. Charles Corry at his website www.corry.ws

I’ve asked Dr. Corry on the show today to discuss the Equal Justice Foundation and its research, lobbying efforts and services focused on domestic violence, legal sexism, civil liberties, and family law issues.

You can get the latest show by:

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

Learn more:

Equal Justice Foundation
Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado

Important

ArgusEyes — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:38:37 GMT

About cross-posts

ArgusEyes — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:46:14 GMT

The last two posts are cross-posts from Equalism Activism. I want to explain in case this is viewed as laziness (which it kinda is). If there is anyone out there who reads this regularly (hi mum) then you will notice that it goes through periods of activity with me posting a lot on one week to posting almost nothing on the next. Apart from my natural apathy bouts, work gets in the way and life interjects.

At times like these there is no activity here but Justin from Equalism Activism has kindly granted me the permission to cross post gender topics from that blog and I can also cross post my pieces and videos there. So this will help to fill the gaps with something to read. Also, I am planning to move out of the country for a bit so I have a lot to do regarding the move. Including moving data, selling superfluous items and planning all the fiddly little details.

However, at all times I am racking up ideas and rants, There just isn't enough hours in the day.

Ken Wiebe - Deadbeat Dads or a Deadbeat Family Law System? + Warren Farrell on Feminism and the Gender Transition Movement - Pendulum Effect Episode 4

ArgusEyes — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:36:52 GMT

Cross-posted from Equalism Activism.

On today’s show I interview Ken Wiebe of Fathers Canada, a coalition dedicated to working on behalf of fathers and children, advancing fathers’ rights and shared parenting while exposing the corruption and sexism rampant in the family law system.

We conclude a three part interview with Dr. Warren Farrell, men’s movement pioneer. We focus on gender history along with a discussion on historical and contemporary feminism, and the future of the gender transition movement and men’s activism.

Plus, news and commentary in the fields of gender and equalism from our regular pundit Mark aka Argus Eyes, who runs the blog True-Equality.

Ken Wiebe is a father, a self employed business man and an independent contractor who has been a frequent independent contract consultant for government for approximately 19 years, in computer matters. He is the spokesman for B.C. Fathers, an unregistered support group for fathers and mothers in regard to access, custody and matrimonial disputes. He also assists in coordinating the coalition Fathers Canada.

Dr. Warren Farrell is roundly regarded as a leading figure in the men’s movement, or better, the gender transition movement. His unique background and expertise give him a perfect vantage point from which to address men’s issues. Dr. Farrell has taught gender issues and psychology at several institutes, including Brooklyn College, Georgetown University, American University and the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

As a young graduate, Dr. Farrell was a major player in the feminist movement, especially in creating men’s groups across the US, then becoming the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Director of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Farrell was featured in media including the New York Times, the Today Show and the Phil Donahue Show, leading to his authorship of the pro-feminist book The Liberated Man.

As we discuss, in the late 80s, Farrell became increasingly convinced that feminism was rather one sided and that men’s issues were being neglected, leading to deep research on a variety of topics long taken for granted, and the publication of his landmark The Myth of Male Power, which touched on a diverse cross section of issues.

Farrell would go on to research each area in great depth, leading to the publication of 5 more books, including “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say”, a couples communication book to address the rise in divorces, “Father and Child Reunion”, to address the issue of fatherless homes and present the optimal shared parenting solution, “Why Men Earn More” to address the pay gap, and “Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men” which, among other things, called for men’s studies in academia

You can get the latest show by:

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

Links of Interest

Fathers Canada

Warren Farrell’s website

Help Fight Prostate Cancer, Men’s Second Leading Cause of Death

ArgusEyes — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:03:51 GMT

Cross posted from equalism activism.Movember Foundation of Canada reads:

The website for the prostate fundraising charity the

Which ever way we look at it, men are far less healthy than women. The average life expectancy for men is five years less than females. The obvious question is why?

Men lack awareness about the very real health issue they face. Many feel they have to be tough - “a real man” - and are reluctant to see a doctor about an illness or to go for regular medical check ups.

The aim of Movember is to change this attitude. Make men’s health fun by putting the moustache back on the face of Canadian men and raising some serious funds for prostate cancer.

Every year around 24,700 Canadian men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 4,300 die of the disease, making it the number one cancer threat to Canadian men.

EqualismActivism and the Pendulum Effect team has decided to make prostate cancer fundraising and awareness our next priority by getting involved with some outstanding organizations and initiatives. The first organization, Movember, may at first sound rather outlandish, but has a tremendously important mandate, which it furthers every November:

The Movember event creates awareness around men’s health issues and raises funds for carefully selected beneficiary partners (that are also charitable organizations) in each country, with a focus on prostate cancer.

Since its inception as a formal charity in 2004, Movember has raised over $29 million (CAD) globally and is continuously working to increase awareness of prostate cancer within the community and change the attitude men have about their health.

Other charities take a more mainstream approach, including two big walks for prostate cancer each year.

Firstly, in its 31st year, the Harry Rosen walk - 5k or 8k - which takes place April 4, 2009 and is organized by the men’s clothing store. The walk takes place in Vancouver and Toronto, with donations from the Toronto eventgoing to the Princess Margaret Hospital.

Secondly, there exists the Fathers Day Safeway run/walk on June 15, 2009, which takes place at cities across Canada (Halifax, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Kamloops, Kelowna and Metro Vancouver). Last year 4,000 participants raised just under $1 million.

Most of these charities raise funds that are directed to the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation of Canada, whose mission is

to raise funds for research into the prevention, treatment and cure of prostate cancer by engaging Canadians through awareness, education, and advocacy.

It is in fact the leading national organization dedicated exclusively to fighting prostate cancer, which is the leading cancer to hit Canadian men, with 1 in 7 getting it during their life. If you want to get involved with us in supporting any of these organizations please contact justin.trottier@gmail.com

If you know of any other important events and organizations supporting prostate cancer in one way or another or if you have some unique idea for a new initiative please provide those here. Agree or not with the more controversial posts on this blog, prostate cancer is a Men’s Issue of immense importance and one which is rarely the focus of health awareness campaigns despite it being one of the leading killers of human beings on this planet and one that is growing at an alarming rate compared to other health issues.

Men's Right's News - The Pendulum Effect Episode 4

ArgusEyes — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:54:04 GMT

Man must pay support though twins not his

http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

Every now and then those who are sympathetic to men's issue need to pause and take stock of just how egregious the instances of anti-male courts can be. In this piece from the Toronto Star entitled "Man must pay support though twins not his".

An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.

In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage.

Source: Precious Yutangco http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

At the end of the article it states:

The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.

Source: Precious Yutangco http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

The parent's wrong doings?! I see only one part has committed any wrong here, and it is the mother. Naturally this is all for the children. Apparently you can sell men down any river if the shibboleth of "it's for the children" is there to allow one to do so.

Situations like this are a dime a dozen, and it's a downright shame. It must be the only instance where the defrauded must, by court order, pay the person who defrauded him. And before you say the money goes to the children, I must point out to you the factual inaccuracy of that statement. The money goes to the mother who has no accountability over how she spends it, and can take the father to court to demand more money apparently.

Sorry, but the "it's for the children" line does not allow you to completely stamp on and abuse another human being. Even if that human being is one of those inferior males.

Anyone looking at what the feminists have been up to these last years will notice a certain trend, the expansion of terms and labels to include more and more men under their cover. It happens with the expansion of the term rape and here, with the expansion of the term father.

To all the young men who might be listening to this, if you were thinking of helping out a friend of yours with kids by letting them stay around for a couple of months. Well now it's time to think twice, because you might end up being the only father figure they've known and thus.. daddy.

Only in situations like this do people seem to get all dewy eyed over the important need of fathers... As a wallet.

In related news the blog Psychology today reports that:

On Jan. 1, Massachusetts adopted new child-support guidelines that will likely raise the amount paid by non-custodial parents, usually fathers.

Source: Paul Raeburn http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/about-fathers/200901/child-support-how-much-is-too-much

Dennis Prager Responds

http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=81ddddf7-6fc5-4d7d-a3da-e00fc33d38fe

As a follow-up, last week, I mentioned the reaction to a column written by Dennis Prager entitled "when a woman isn't in the mood". In short, Dennis suggests that women who do not feel in the mood to have sex with theirs should reconsider if they actually do so to help their marriages. In a large part, the feminist reaction on the blogosphere was to call Mr. Prager a rape advocate. Since then, Prager invited two of the columnists Jeff Fecke and Megan Carpentier onto his show. This is part of what he had to say (watch clip).

Bravo Mr. Prager.

In related new, this story from the Toronto sun entitled "Hey ladies, just do it".

For her husband Brad's 40th birthday, she gave him the gift of sex -- for an entire year.

It took energy, tenaciousness and focus, but the couple stuck with the experiment, even when they were exhausted, not in the mood, and overloaded with to-do list items.

"One day, the light bulb went on," says Charla, who chronicled their story in a book entitled, 365 Nights.

Source: TANYA ENBERG http://www.torontosun.com/life/sexfiles/2009/01/22/8105766-sun.html

...

Now happy with a regular sex life, the Mullers have held onto one long-lasting lesson: The importance of maintaining intimacy.

"It was, without a doubt, the most transforming year of our marriage," she says.

Source: TANYA ENBERG http://www.torontosun.com/life/sexfiles/2009/01/22/8105766-sun.html

For a woman who was raped for 365 days in a row, Charla sure does seem upbeat.

Women and children first on the Hudson crash

http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2009/01/21/the-hudson-crash---women-and-children-first.aspx

After reading and hearing far too much credulous talk in the news about God and miracles in relation to the crash of flight 1549 into the Hudson River. I encountered a news story that I had not heard anywhere else, which seemed to me to be far more important. The BBC and Associated Press report that women and children were the first onto the life rafts after the plane crash landed, then people who had fallen into the river and been plucked out.

I think that chivalry has a place in a world less hostile to men. But in 2009 with the equality of outcome of feminism prevalent in society I think men damage themselves by capitulating to chivalrous attitudes. Chivalry is the main reason male judges oppress fathers and pass anti-male laws. Throw chivalry into that icy water where it belongs.

NOW President says "Obama cabinet level picks so far under represent women"

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/01/14/now-president-says-obama-cabinet-level-picks-so-far-under-represent-women/

As if we need more proof that to modern radical feminism, equality of outcome has become the goal as opposed to equality of opportunity. From fox news comes an interview with Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organisation for Women.

Synopsis: The President of the National Organization For Women complains that while divers racially, the Obama cabinet-level picks so far under-represent women. She calls it 'disappointing' and says "twenty-five percent seems a little low." She says there is still time to improve that record by appointing a woman to the now open Commerce seat and creating a cabinet level office of Women's Affairs.

Source: Greta Van Susteren http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/01/14/now-president-says-obama-cabinet-level-picks-so-far-under-represent-women/

Hopefully the president will not capitulate to supremacist groups such as the National Organisation for Women who would promote that you assign a woman to a post purely because she was a woman. When it comes to the people who will be running the country, I would want the best person possible irregardless of if they were male, female, black, white, Asian, Christian or Muslim.

Grandmother Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro on Behalf of Shared Parenting

http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/Sheila_Peltzer_Kili_Release_Final.pdf?docID=1701

Not all news is bad news though, this is a heart-warming report from the American coalition for fathers and children.

Charlotte, NC - 70 year old grandmother, Sheila Peltzer, will climb Africa's tallest peak, 19,200' Mount Kilimanjaro raising awareness for Shared Parenting and Familial Dysautonomia. Peltzer, departing January 21, 2009, will make the ten day trek up the western route where sub zero summit temperatures are expected.

Peltzer's coach for this grueling climb is former 3-time Super Bowl Champion and motivational speaker, Tim McKyer.

Many people ask me how a former professional football player and a retired school teacher became involved in this effort," Peltzer said. "It's simple. The family courts in this country are broken. Children are being denied an equal relationship with both parents. I'm unable to be a part of my grandchildren's lives because the courts denied their father enough time for shared parenting. Two of my grandchildren have FD (Familial Dysautonomia), a rare and fatal genetic disease, resulting in recurring intensive care hospitalizations. Because my son has limited access to his own children they are being denied the love of their grandparents, as well as their dad.

Source: ACFC http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/Sheila_Peltzer_Kili_Release_Final.pdf?docID=1701

That about sums it up. I wish that the "it's for the children" crowd, like the judge from my first story, will stop and consider the destructive effects that their "beating up on fathers" antics will actually have on children. Doing it for the children mean more than wringing every last penny out of a dad.

How dare she generalize feminists?!

ArgusEyes — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:23:15 GMT

Take a deep breath folks.. I want you to see this woman blatantly stating what "feminists" (her word) like and don't like. I mean.. what a generalization! I want all the people who bitched at me for generalizing feminists on my videos (the problems with feminism in particular) to come out and make the usual bland bleating about how "not all feminists are like that" or "you're generalizing!".

In case you're wondering, yes, that was sarcasm. But this woman gets it fairly right with her generalizations about what feminists like and don't like. It's pure gold. We feminists are not man haters but we do hate some men.. conservatives mainly. And we don't like all woman like.. say.. conservatives.

So I present this video to the jury in the case of "feminists are leftists". Court is in order.

Apathy..

ArgusEyes — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:08:56 GMT

..Sucks!

Anyone who has watched my videos for a while will notice that there are long periods where I don't make any videos and then I start up again. The reason for this is apathy. I suffer (not that it's a medical condition) from periods of apathy, which is where you feel a lack of interest or concern. So I haven't posted anything in a while so I thought I'd write about that.

It's not like depression, I simply don't feel like doing much, and since making a video is fairly in-depth (writing it, setting up, going out, etc) then it can get put off for a long time. At the moment I am feeling pretty apathetic, this is mainly due to the fact that it is winter and thus a lot of people feel down. When it comes to summer, I find it easier to focus on making videos and it is also nicer out, so I can film in fields and forests.

Read Little Green Footballs

ArgusEyes — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:03:05 GMT

There is a list of links on the right but one blog in particular deserves a special shout out for its importance. That blog is little green footballs. A right leaning blog dedicated to highlighting Islamic totalitarianism and anti evolution news items, it's basically aligned with my own blog on many issues.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

This is what a feminist looks like - A censor

ArgusEyes — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:16:56 GMT

There is a silly little vacuous propoganda video on youtube entitled "this is what a feminist looks like".

It's what you'd expect. Feminists believe in smiles and rainbows and gumbdrop lollipop trees! It's a load of rot. But if you were to examine the comments on the thread below the video then you'll see something all too predicable.

This is why I disable comment voting. It is a cudgel for the majority to beat down the opposition. It is a tool that is overwhelmingly used by intellecual thugs and doesn't serve a valid purpose apart from that.

Who is willing to guess that those grey comments disagree? Are they all obscene? I doubt it but youtube isn't giving me a way to view them.

Here is the video.

Our governments stifle the freedom of men in order to infantilise them

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:31:57 GMT

This is a follow-up to some feedback email I received. You can read the original blog post here.

Dear Mark

I could seemingly not upload this letter as a comment on your blog. Will you do that if you can?

With respect to Feministing.com I am glad that you make clear that focussing on the trivialities of a particular cause from time to time is not necessarily always a bad thing. But I completely agree with you that only focussing on trivial matters is to neglect many of the issues that really matter in this instance your trash magazine-analogy was a nice example. I do not know if Feministing.com censor opposing view, are obtuse [or] fling obscenities at their opponents, but if this is really the case, then of course they would go down in my estimation as well. I am just yet to experience this as I do not really spend much time on the Feministing home page.

You go on to say that [w]e hear a lot about women in the media and that a lot of silly commentary like Feministings does appear out there all over the place. I would argue and urge you to consider that you are having this particular experience precisely because you (because of your position in the Mens Rights Movement) are subconsciously but actively seeking out contexts in which trivialities and silliness is bound to occur. I am not making any presumptions about where you are and what you are doing, but I certainly do not experience a great interest in womens issues in the mainstream media (here speaking of the 6 oclock news and the morning newspaper; whatever your average citizen reads), and whatever issues are featured are seemingly not something which is done anything about in any case. I would, however, like to see not only more emphasis on womens issues, but on mens issues as well. If gender relations were something that all men were as passionate about as you then I believe we would have much more varied media coverage of gender issues and as a result hereof these issues would not as easily be dismissed by politicians as I often feel they are in this day and age.

Secondly I do not expect you to address reams of points in one video, but I am glad (not in the I agree-kind of way) to hear that you plan to actually formulate and publish your opinions about pornography in a YouTube-video. Notify me when you have done so, and I will (perhaps) make a rebuttal video. For now I will address the points you make in your reply.

To brand pornography evil is NOT an arrogant presumption. First of all, it could not possible be a presumption since it is not an opinion I pull out of the blue, but an assertion based on long and thorough research on the matter. Second of all it is not arrogant as my view stems from actual knowledge about the industry of pornography and thus subsequent empathy for the women in it rather than from an ignorant and ideological black/white world view which I (without makinf presumptions) think you are exhibiting at this point. Pornography and prostitution is hate propaganda and exploitation. Pornography and prostitution are factors that must be outlawed and eliminated from society in the same way that we have outlawed (but not) eliminated slavery, child abuse and the legality of men stamping on daughters necks because of their religion and bigotry. When you say that women in pornography choose to do it and make quite a bit of money doing so, you are making two assertions. 1: Women choose it themselves and are responsible for their own choices, and 2: They get paid a lot to do it. First a few words about your assertion about choice.

From the point of view you present it SEEMS (note that I am not presuming anything) that you believe that choices are something we human beings either make or do not make and that all choices are uncomplicated, clear cut and gets you from point to point in life by your own responsibility. In my opinion, to hold a view like that is simply to be ignorant of all the nuances and abstractions that a human life is full of. More than quite often, the people I meet who use the trump card argument of choice are people who will thwart any call for self-reflection about their use of pornography; most often because they are born into privilege; never having had to experience how ones social heritage, skin colour, family or economic situation, etc can affect how one makes (or is directly or indirectly forced to make) choices that will lead you to very uncompromising places in life.

I am not saying that you are necessarily one of these people. I am saying that you at least use the choice argument here as if there is not an age-long tradition of academic peer-reviewed and approved research which has long proven beyond reasonable doubt that [a] meaningful discussion of choice cant be restricted to the single moment when a woman decides to perform in a specific pornographic film but must include all the existing background conditions that affect not only the objective choices she faces but her subjective assessment of those choices (Robert Jensen. Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. P. 87). You ought to do some check-up research on the matter yourself before speaking so casually about choice. I assure you that thorough research has been done on the matters of childhood sexual abuse and childhood physical abuse and their later-in-life repetitive natures, the role of poverty, homelessness, economic deprivation, socially determined lack of economic opportunity, trafficking, fraudulent job advertisements, and finally cultural training and socialisation to pornified culture. There is a rich body of literature out there for you to explore, or you can perhaps start out at www.againstpornography.org. Anyway, all of the factors mentioned above must be taken into consideration when you speak of choice, and the more factors in play, the less meaningful the notion of choice becomes. Ill emphasise this with an example:

Chinese single mothers who spend 18 hours a day in a sweat shop factory under working conditions that would make even the most neo-liberal asshole cry do also have the choice to either be or to not be in that factory. But taking all of the social conditions under which these women live into consideration, the notion of choice looses all meaning. To bend it in neon for you: If one performs a degrading and/or self-destructive act whilst knowing that there is a chance of there being even worse future consequences IF the degrading and/or self-destructive act is not performed, then your choice to perform the act has been rendered meaningless.

Seen in the light of all this, your second assertion, that women make quite a bit of money doing so, i.e. doing degrading and/or self-destructive acts (my words, not yours) is not any better. That people contribute to the economy on the one side and are humiliated, degraded and abused on the other side as a consequence thereof does not a morally acceptable balance of human interests make. One would have to be either extremely ignorant or extremely cold hearted to render notions of abuse, humiliation, degradation, violence, etc acceptable as long as one could make money off of it. Unfortunately people like these DO exist and they are constantly trying to make you and others adapt their view of human kind (and women in particular, though also men) to make you buy their product and increase the demand for more abuse, humiliation, degradation and violence.

You will perhaps make the argument that some women choose to be in pornography completely of their own free will without any free-choice compromising being in play. While it might be possible to actually find these women somewhere, you still have to take into account the inescapable fact that at least some women (and probably a majority according to research) choose under conditions that seriously complicate their choices. So when you as a consumer throw on a DVD at home or engage in online pornography, you have no way of telling which category the girls you are watching belong in. Even if you knew for a fact that the particular woman or man (or donkey) you were watching was there completely by his/her own free will with no compromising conditions behind her/his decision, you are still helping the porn industry staying profitable and thus helping to increase the demand for new adult performers some of which have not made the choice themselves or under the wrong conditions. There are of course resources for getting off like YouPorn, RedTube or the good old file sharing systems, where the consumer does not contribute economically to the porn industry. But this still useless, since the consumer of porn is both altering his (or her, but in 90% of the cases his) view on sexuality and fuelling his appetite for more rough kinds of pornography; a well-known syndrome of the porn user that one kind of porn leaves you needing more and different visual stimulation for your next fix. In any case the consumer is still looking at women being degraded and humiliated and if that is his erotica then he has a problem.

I know that you are an ardent individualist, but your passionate anger about the patriarchal oppression of women in Islam leaves me thinking that you of course have empathy for other human beings. I urge you to read this article by Martin Amis and reflect on whether pornography is perhaps equally oppressive in nature. Here you go: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4153718,00.html. Now to something else.

The following I did not say in my first letter, but I am going to say it now in the light of what I have just discussed. I think that being against Islam because of Islams oppressive nature towards women while simultaneously being pro-pornography is to be against one form of oppression but for another. And now an apology:

If I in any way made presumptions (right ones or wrong ones) about you in my first letter, I am very sorry. It was a rather quick and not well though through scribbling down of commentary section material. I apologise. In this letter I have tried to emphasise when I am expressing my personal perception of you or when I am talking about people with the same attitudes and ideas as you. When I PERCEIVE something about you, I am not making presumptions be sure of that I am more than open to the fact that you are not the way I perceive you to be. Just tell me when I perceive wrongly.

Finally, I have watched your video Men are More Oppressed than Women, and I really feel that I should not mix this letter with my rebuttal of it. I will perhaps do that in another letter or make a video for you. The long and the short of it is that your assertion that men are more oppressed than women is flat out wrong, and that your arguments for it are easily dismissed we do agree on a few things in your video though.

I hope that some of the previous has made you rethink your attitude toward certain things too.

---

Sorry to bother you again, but I forgot to mention something that might not be obvious to anyone. I just want to make clear that when I say 'BAN pornography and prostituion', I am NOT AT ALL (just to emphasise!) proposing that we make it illegal for women to prostitute themselves or to participate in pornography. Even though there might be conditions that influence what choices they make, it is ultimately their own bodies and their own minds.

What I am saying is that we need to make illegal the BUYING of prostitutes and the DISTRIBUATION of pornography. In that way we will in both cases have eliminated the economic factor which ensures that it remains a growing industry. Once money is out of the picture, the ones who make porn in the privacy of their own home because they WANT to (secular society with respects to pornography as it is our goal with respect to religion) and those who have sex with 10 men a day because they WANT to, can do so without me or others suspecting that pimps and other scumbags are making money off of the humiliation of women, men and children.

At the same time we will of course have to engineer more economic opportunities and social relief for women so we remove the conditions that might make them turn to being humiliated sexually for a living in the first place and create opportunities for those who wish to leave prostitution or the porn industry

Hi,

First of all I have to say that you write well and respectfully. I appreciate that. It is certainly rare on YouTube.

Human choices are not simple, one would have to be a fool to believe that. What I think is that the government (which one implies when one is talking about laws and what should be allowed) must respect people's choices that they make. It is not the role of government to analyse the nuances in our decisions and act like mummy to us, this is tyrannical. I suspect that this is simply where we have differing opinions about what the role of government should be but I think that you too are a man who is seeking to clarify where we differ rather than win.

Some of us base our decisions around some guiding principles. For me it is liberty. The freedom to make my own choices and mistakes and to have the oppressive spectre of the government off of my back.

Bearing that in mind, let's examine your arguments where you present research. You can cite all the papers you want to me, it will mean nothing. Let's compare it to a similar situation – smoking. I know that smoking is bad for me so I don't need you to cite me research that says so.

The government deciding what it will allow me to do based upon what it thinks are acceptable ways to lead a life means we have entered a situation where our governments stifle the freedom of men in order to infantilise them. This is not a good situation.

You may say that smoking is legal and indeed it is, but the government already tells businesses that they cannot allow smoking on their own premises. Also, I cannot smoke pot can I? A substance far more useful than tobacco and far less damaging to society than alcohol is.

Basically you sound quite high-and-mighty deeming the decisions of these women to be "self destructive" and "degrading". I object to attitudes like this, be they the social righteousness of the left or the moral righteousness of the right. If people want to degrade themselves then let them do it.

To address your follow-up email. You might say that all I have written so far does not apply because you say you're not really for banning porn. Then I must say that it is quite a dishonest position to say you don't want to ban porn in spirit but want to ban the buying and distribution of it. That is imbecilic as a position to be quite frank. What is the point? That is like saying "I'm for cars as long as no-one dies in one", then you're not for cars. Also it still represents the ban happy attitude of our government where they intrude into our lives more than is necessary.

Sorry I have not written more, given how much you wrote, but I think there is a clash of fundamental world views here.

Sincerely,
Mark

The threat to liberty comes mainly from the left

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:53:49 GMT

This might sound weird but stay with me..

I'm getting more and more interested in fascism.

Not from a personal perspective mind, but from an academic one. I find it fascinating and perfectly relevant to what is happening in the modern world (see below for details). I have been recommended a book called "the black book of communism", and whilst perusing the Amazon page, I saw the following review.

This book is an absolute disgrace. Its pure right-wing propaganda and the sort of book which should be banned from being published.

I agree with other reviewers that Soviet Communism is far different from other forms. Capitalists often forget to look at the flaws in their own system, many of the atrocities which the book mentions have taken place under the command of George W. Bush and his cronies in recent months.

I think the author should have taken a different approach and maybe actually bothered reading the Communist Manifesto!

Source: Amazon.co.uk The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

I have encountered this myself. As soon as one utters a non-left opinion then there is a subset of people who ill shriek "neocon!" or "right winger!" as if these terms were dirty words in themselves, and whenever I utter a left wing idea then I get the idiots on the right shrieking "leftist" or "liberal". Both these groups are idiots but, as always, there are more on the left and the right.

The person who "wrote" this review is a fool incapable of thought and thus is pretty below the margin for consideration but the attitude of repression on the following statement:

Its pure right-wing propaganda and the sort of book which should be banned from being published.

Source: Amazon.co.uk The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

Is very worrying indeed. These attitudes come from the view that people who differ are bad. And you can do whatever you want to the bad and/or bigoted. After all, is it not morally excusable to hate Hitler? If you conflate a good person with Hitler then you can justify any action, not matter how heinous, against them. This is one of the cornerstones of human evil, how we demonise those who we disagree with and when they lose their humanity we do not care how they suffer. It happened with the Jews, it happens to a lesser degree with whites and men today. Organised movements of hatred are to be feared greatly. Hatred always precedes atrocity.

Many on the left make the argument that the threat to freedom comes from the right. In many cases they are correct, the difference between right wing fascism and left wing fascism comes mainly from the general right/left differences.

The left dreams of utopia on earth and desires unity for people to come on board with this idea. They treat their politics religiously and murder those who disagree with them politically. They also deem to destroy institutions that represent separate sources of power and morals that could conflict with their political ideals. Religion is one, the family is another. Anything that threatens their sense of unity, you can see this in the statements of the American left today, the calls for unity basically mean "drop your objections, and come on board with my program".

Right wing fascism is tied to religion mainly. Where the belief that utopia cannot be reached on earth is errant. The main way people are oppressed under right wing fascism is in their actions and thoughts regarding religion. They are theocracies where government and religion are intertwined, in the left wing the government is the religion.

Both are faith based dogmatisms. I am a mere whippersnapper in this immense academic field so I shall humbly take your corrections, but this is the way I see it currently. Back to freedoms, where the right removes freedoms is in religious areas, they mainly want to affect what you do whereas the left wants to affect how you think. Which is the bigger threat? Well, leftist socialist regimes such as communism alone has murdered more of its own people than right wing fascist regimes do. Personally, the repression of thought such as currently goes on in North Korea and China scares more than any right wing fascism does. In the west the left is far more of a threat to freedom. We are entering a left wing fascism – that of political correctness. The right is not strong in western society at the moment. The pure size of government and how they control our lives is getting worse all the time, this is not a right wing movement but a left one. The problem is worse in socialist Europe than in any other place.

In the words of Fred Reed. I'm going to move into a shack in the woods and put up a sign that says "beware of radioactive cholera".

As for political correctness fascism. Here is a news piece from the BBC about a Dutch MP who is to be charged for "making anti-Islamic statements". Great, then there is no freedom of speech. End of story. Hate speech is a rotten Trojans horse by the utopians that are always in the wings, it's exactly the kind of smiley face fascism that Jonah Goldberg talks about in his book Liberal Fascism.

Here is Pat Condell on the matter:

Great as always.

The Hudson Crash - Women and Children First?!?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:04:06 GMT

Asked how he got out of the plane he said: "At first chaos, but everyone was kind of orderly, man. You know after a while everyone, we just, I just kept saying relax relax, women and children first. And then it just started filling with water, quick."

Source: BBC Airbus crashes in New York river

Heading toward the forward exits, and then standing on the wings, the passengers developed their pecking order. Women and children went first into the rafts, then people who had fallen into the river and been plucked out.

Source: Associated Press Survivors offer praise, gratitude after NY crash

But that's the point, isn't it: people almost died! And they didn't die! And as interesting as semantics are, and as much inherent patriarchal nonsense there is in the fabric of society coming out all the time, I for one am not going to get exercised about something someone said — maybe off the top of his head — in an effort to successfully save several hundred lives. I agree that if this is indeed the airline protocol it bears questioning, or at least cogent, non-anachronistic explanation beyond some hoary gallantry. But yesterday what could have been a tragedy, wasn't. We know women and children were evacuated first because they — and the men who followed — lived to talk about it. I would be curious to hear what the women on that flight have to say about it — maybe in, say, a week. But, as Ecclesiastes and the Byrds would have it, for everything there is a season.

Source: Jezebel Flight 1549 Survivors: Let's Talk About "Women And Children First"

Elevating the Soul

ArgusEyes — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:07:44 GMT

My second latest video was entitled "Thou Shalt Not Criticise Women". It was prepared for a podcast called "the pendulum effect". I also cross posted the transcript on the associated blog over at equalismactivism.com.

I must say that I didn't expect such a tide of negative comments. The link between atheism and leftism is sadly confirmed yet again. And also is the link between leftism and anti-men's rights movement. There is simply no place at the table for a person such as myself who has centrist/right views, if you come with anything approaching a right wing idea then the wall of intellectual thuggery will send you scurrying away.

I was up from 10:30om until 5 in the morning replying to comments and emails from my blog, this blog and my YouTube account. By the end I was depressed and rueful of the human race.

Hanging around the noxious atmosphere of comments threads with fools degrades the soul. It's the intellectual equivalent of junk food, addictive to get into but ultimately demoralising. I have decided to only do things that are elevating – creative things such as making music, developing programs and contributing original arguments.

Bratz Dolls May Give Girls Unrealistic Expectations Of Head Size

ArgusEyes — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:02:17 GMT

The Pendulum Effect

ArgusEyes — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:13:25 GMT

I have been asked to contribute a regular segment to a new podcast “the pendulum effect”. I’ve linked to it on the left so please check it out. I think you’re going to like it. The latest episode has an interview with none other than Warren Farrell himself.

The pieces that I will be contributing to the podcast will be focused mainly on gender related news items. I will also be recoding these segments as videos and putting them onto YouTube. This particular video is featured in the show, but it is something I have always wanted to address and what a fortuitous situation to finally do so.

I would like describe what I understand the term “the pendulum effect” to mean. I myself have used this analogy in the past and it about time I expand on what I believe it to mean. I have broken down the pendulum effect into chronological stages and I have cited feminism as an illustration of the effect, even though it could be applied to other civil rights issues such as black rights and homosexual rights.

Step 1: A civil rights need is born

For complex historical reasons beyond the scope of this article, a civil rights need is identified on behalf of a group. The pendulum effect is viewed as bipolarity between two groups. With the group on the left deemed as being the oppressed group and the group in the right as being the oppressors. The relationship may be between women and men, blacks and whites or homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Step 2: The legitimate phase of the movement

The oppressed group does indeed suffer from legitimate grievances. They become aware of the need to change their standing and push the pendulum of equal rights with their actions, to correct these grievances and to improve their image in the zeitgeist.

They face some resistance from either side, but they also face a lot of support from the oppressor side, who truly emphasises with their plight. This is the legitimate stage of the movement as the oppressed side gains the rights that they clearly should have. Luminaries of the men’s right movement such as Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell freely admit that there are genuine gains that feminism has achieved, things such as legislation that codifies the right to equal pay such as the equal pay act of 1963 in the U.S. and 1970 in the U.K., the right to own property and to object to genuinely misogynistic attitudes as can be seen in the old style advertisements and public service announcements. I agree with this attitude personally. There is no such thing as a civil rights movement that has done no good. This is the legitimate and honourable stage of the movement. The pendulum is even.
Step 3: The illegitimate phase of the movement

The transition between this step and the last is hard to identify as the oppressed group transitions from generally doing good to doing bad. The oppressed group now has a respected and powerful lobby acting on its behalf that can affect the law, at this point no reasonable person could describe the group as being “oppressed” anymore, but the movement has turned into an industry of grievance mining, looking under every rock for signs of oppression and slights.

It is important to emphasise the members of the group are not lying to keep up the appearance if being oppressed, they truly believe it, but they are in too deep and lack the ability to holistically view the progress that their group has made, to take “yes” for an answer. The “oppressions” that their group supposedly suffers become more and more academic and created out of whole cloth. The goals of the group come more from the radical activist members, who mostly reside in academia. Issues that they choose to fight for include things such as redefining language, redefining history, redefining their definition of oppression and re-characterising the successes of the movement into further examples of oppression.

A prime example of manufacturing problems is to me, one of the most reprehensible aspects of modern feminism. This is where feminism has achieved a world where women have no less opportunity than men, can take any degree they want to and choose their own career. And then when women do not flock to careers that feminists want them to, they cites this as proof of work that still needs to be done for women’s rights. I think that women who feel empowered to enter the fields they want to enter means that the work of women’s rights is mostly done. To spin the liberation of women into an attempt to further victimise them is a disgusting act that is to spit in the eye of the good achievements that feminism has made.

The worst effect of this illegitimate phase of the movement is to brainwash the younger members of the group into hating men. The feminists have already refined history and distorted the facts to where, as a feminist said in an email to me, half of women are raped and the fraction of feminist haters dwindles in comparison to the number of men who hate women. Yeah, we sure are terrible.

None of this has any relation to the truth but what is to be the expected outcome if a young woman is told that men as such beasts? I’ll tell you the outcome because I saw it firsthand when I graduated in 2005. The young women I went to university with were angry, they were petulant and a hostile and felt the need to partake in constant belittling comments and man bashing. With an angry youth, the road is paved to the next step.
Step 4: The oppression of the oppressors

The discourse has become one sided. The feminists are seen as the authorities in the problem of equality as the status quo is viewed as being sexist and thus un-needing of representation. The feminists are now running a dictatorship of opinion and with a background noise of resentment and manufactured oppressions they start to act in a very hypocritical way. The true idea of equality has been lost, they have a new definition of the word. Equality of outcome. Sameness.

Departments of women’s health spring up, ministers for women are appointed and special programs for women are created. All of these are designed to help a beleaguered minority get the leg up they apparently need. With a population of hostile women some truly horrendous laws are passed, men’s achievements are deemed to be on the back of women. If girls are underachieving in school then they are being underserved whereas if the girls are overachieving then this is a sign of their natural superiority and empowerment. There exists no compassion for the suffering of males, many feminists will come straight out and tell you tough shit – they’ve been oppressing us for so long that it’s our turn now.

Witness the most obscene situation. The generation of women who have never had it so good being the most aggrieved and punishing the generation of men who have oppressed them the lease and want to commiserate the most. The pendulum is well and truly on the other side now.
Step 5: The backlash

The so called oppressors are now the oppressed and the cat’s out of the bag. Men are hit hard, their children are taken away whilst they are treated like criminals and are told when they can see them. They die younger, have to retire later, get shafted in divorce, suffer harsher sentences, are lagging in school, graduate less and are assaulted everyday by man bashing.

They can be sentenced to 18 years as a serf if a woman steals their sperm, they have no choice about being a parent, less is spend on their health concerns, they spend more on insurance, they can get passed over in lieu of a less qualified female at work and every morning on the tube ride to work they get tut-tutted at by adverts as being a bunch of boozing wife beating misogynistic rapists.

Then they have to listen to some snarky little co-worker tell them that.. “It’s a man’s world!”.

It’s enough to make a fellow turn to drink. More and more guys mutter heretical thoughts at the pub. When in the company of men I get favourable reactions to my material. Organised groups like fathers for justice start up and men start voicing their opinions on youtube and through podcasts like this one.

The reaction of the feminists? In one word, hysterical. They cannot react with ideas because their belief system has long been a barren intellectual wasteland populated with unproven hypotheses, conspiracy theories and falsehoods. So they react with shaming tactics, calling us “women haters” and claiming that we want to “turn back the clock” on women’s rights. Well, I don’t want to turn back the clock, but I certainly want to push back on that pendulum.

What remains beyond the backlash step remains to be seen, people who are fighting back against the ideas of feminism might instigate a whole new pendulum effect in the opposite direction. Perhaps we are doomed to endlessly push back and forth in perpetuity. I certainly hope not. Allow me to tell you what I hope the effect of the backlash against feminism will be.

We all know that a political system in which only one side is represented is not a good thing. If one side has complete control to implement their ideas then history tells us that we can end up in a horrific situation. There are two sexes and so far we’ve been letting feminism represent all issues pertaining to gender by itself. What I want to see in the future is a two party system where both sides are represented by movements that actually represent its members. I don’t pretend that I understand a woman’s point of view I am a man not a woman, let the feminists speak for themselves and men’s rights activists speak for ourselves. This two party system will also keep the other side honest, feminism has grown sloppy and overly academic in the face of no opposition so let us shine the light of scrutiny onto feminist ideas and let the ones that don’t stand to reason scuttle from sight.

Thou Shalt Not Criticise Women

ArgusEyes — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:21:04 GMT

I listen to and read podcasts, blogs and news sites from a variety of perspectives. From hardcore atheists and liberals such as P.Z. Meyer's Pharyngula to secular humanists, scientific skeptics, libertarians and religious right wingers. One person on the right I greatly respect is called Dennis Prager. I do not agree with everything he says but he speaks a lot of truth on many issues including issues pertaining to men and women.

Dennis Prager wrote a two part column recently that set the feminist blogosphere alight with indignation. I want to retell this event to you as it is an important illustration of the reaction one can receive when they take an oppositional stance to feminism.

His column is a two parter called "When a Woman Isn't in the Mood" (part 1 part 2). I shall read you a couple of opening paragraphs in order to set the tone.

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is "not in the mood" and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

There are marriages with the opposite problem — a wife who is frustrated and hurt because her husband is rarely in the mood. But, as important and as destructive as that problem is, it has different causes and different solutions, and is therefore not addressed here. What is addressed is the far more common problem of "He wants, she doesn't want."

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

Source: Dennis Prager When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part 1

At the end of part 1 he writes:

I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won't tell you.

Source: Dennis Prager When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part 1

Allow me to summarise. In these two columns Dennis Prager presents the argument that a wife who cares about having a happy husband rethinks the idea that if she is not in the mood then that means she must not have sex. Prager shines a light on the differences between men and women, sex is far more important to men than it is to women and that a man knows his wife loves him by the fact that she has sex with him. Does mood always determine our actions? No. Are you always in the mood to get up and go to work in the morning? Are you ever in the mood to get up in the night and feed the baby? Take out the trash? Sometimes we have obligations to do things that we don't feel like doing because they lead to good consequences down the road. Prager mentions that, of course, there are times when this advice is inappropriate. It is general marital advice and I agree with it.

Let's see what many feminists had to say about this.

Our first stop is the blog pandagon.net, and a post written by Jesse Taylor. Entitled "Shit you shouldn't say". Where the very first paragraph is:

Dennis Prager says that marital rape is a-okay:

Source: Jesse Taylor Shit you shouldn't say

Taylor is not lying here. He truly believes that in an example like Prager illustrates, where a woman isn't in the mood but makes the decision on her own to have sex with her husband is rape. What feminists believe about rape as compare to what most normal people believe is very worrying, most people would agree that it is forced sex one an obviously non-consenting person. The dictionary definition is replete with words like "force", "violent seizure" and "violation.

What Jesse Taylor is actually proposing is that in a situation where a man wants to have sex with his wife and he indicates this need and she although not feeling in the mood has sex with him, is an instance of rape.

What a loving sense of marriage in the 21st century.

I hope that all married men who are listening to this are sure that their wife was in the mood for one hundred percent of the times you had sex, because you're a rapist in the eyes of the feminists otherwise.

For all the women who are listening to this, I have a question. How do you feel about this? That the movement that supposedly represents you as a woman wants to infantilise you to the point where your own decisions are irrelevant?

Taylor's characterisation of Prager as a rape advocate is disgusting and wrong. But maybe it is a one off? We continue…

The next stop is feministing.com with a post by Jessica Valenti called "Dennis Prager: Nothing says "I love you" like marital rape".

Written in Valenti's own juvenile style, she rarely stops blockquoting enough people to write any original material. But here is some of what she says:

It takes a certain je ne sais quoi to unabashedly argue in favor[sic] of marital rape. Of course columnist Dennis Prager doesn't call it that. No no, he prefers to use some sort of bizarre high school logic about how ladies who really love their man will "give her body" on demand.

Source: Jessica Valenti Dennis Prager: Nothing says "I love you" like marital rape

There is a lesson here about people who have become radicalised filter what they read or see though a dogmatic belief system and re-translate the result and then hold that to be reality. Valenti's comments bear so little relation to what I read in Prager's article that either she mistakenly read something else, is so deep in the fetid pool of fundamentalism as to be unamenable to genuine reflection or change or she didn't read it at all. I suspect the latter.

Our next stop is jezebel.com with a post written by "Megan" called "Conservative Dennis Prager Knows It's Not Rape If His Wife "Submits""

The first paragraph reads:

Conservative pundit and marital rape apologist Dennis Prager has some advice for you ladies with faltering marriages: don't think that just because you don't want to have sex your husband shouldn't try to fuck you.

Source: Megan Conservative Dennis Prager Knows It's Not Rape If His Wife "Submits"

Again, this bears no relation to reality. At this point I must apologise for the profanity in this piece. I thought, initially, that I would try to mask it but I think it is important to realise how the people on these blogs write about people they disagree with.

The feminist blogs are characterised by their vacuity, indecency and sheepish dedication to radicalism. Is there a more reasonable critique? Yes, in fact there is. Ed Brayton's skeptical blog "Dispatches from the culture wars" featured a post on Prager's column called "Prager: Just Lay There and Take It". Brayton stays away from analogising Dennis Prager to a rape advocate, which I am happy to see, but he has still re-interpreted reality in places by claiming things such as:

…married women should always have sex even if they're not in the mood to do so.

Source: Ed Brayton Prager: Just Lay There and Take It

This is not true, in fact Prager specifically says that in certain instances his advice is inappropriate.

All the onus is on women, whom he wrongly presumes want sex less than men.

Source: Ed Brayton Prager: Just Lay There and Take It

Are we to presume that both sexes, who are biologically different, want sex in equal measures. Anyone I know from the real world would agree that men have a higher sex drive than women do, are more visually stimulated and have sex drives that drop off at a lesser rate than women's do. Yet Brayton brays at such un-progressive views of human sexuality, he is operating from theory instead and let's not let reality intrude.

The most important part of this statement is the first part, where Brayton states that "all the onus in on woman" this is true, for this particular article. I suspect that none of these writers actually listen to Dennis Prager's radio show. I do. And I can tell you that he has plenty of criticism for men as well.

I'm sure that they would all nod in appreciation when at one time on his show he lambasted husbands who go to sleep immediately after sex. He said that husbands who do this should stay awake, holding and kissing their wives after sexual intercourse has finished. And I agree with that. After all, you might not want to do it, you might want to go to sleep immediately. However, because you don't feel in the mood doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, because you show her that you love her by doing so and a happy wife leads to a happy home. Would feminists argue with that? I doubt so.

What ruffles these people's feathers the most is the fact that Prager's article is an unaffronted criticism of women. And that it actually places responsibilities and obligations upon them, the horror! The writers seem to be tied up in knots of anguish that Prager doesn't have qualifying language at every step that criticises men in equal order. Such an article would be bloated, boring and would lose all semblance of meaning. I've noticed that the feminists themselves don't mind writing articles and blog posts that singularly criticise men above women.

Download the episode of the "pendulum effect" podcast that this piece appears in.

Can Pixar make a bad film?

ArgusEyes — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:33:33 GMT

I've just finished watching Wall-E and Ratatouille from Pixar. Both films are absolutely fantastic in a way that I've come to expect from that company. I have to say that Pixar haven't made a bad film yet. The only film of theirs I haven't seen yet is cars, but I’ve heard that is good as well.

I can think of no other example of this, the nearest I can think of is the Coen Brothers who seemed like they couldn't fail for a while. But then they released a bunch of stinkers and that was the end of that.

The Pixar films are a real treat for me. They are the best animated, funniest, most character-full animated films out there and may Pixar never fall.

I get email: 'Real Injustices'???

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:26:36 GMT

Okay, for some reason I could not post this in the comment section even when breaking it down into little pieces. If you can, please do in the name of free speech:-)

Feministing.com could spend their time on more important things.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first. If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I am almost inclined to not answer this email as it ascribes imbecility to me, but since I have far better things to do I might as well give it a shot. First of all, your email makes many claims as to what I believe that are out and out lies since I did not make these points, you made them up and then assigned them to me, in many ways this is worst than a lie. Consider this a tip on how to write decently. Address the points of your opponents only, bunch of strawman logical fallacies does not a good argument make.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first.

This is an accurate summary of my position. As pertaining to Feministing. However, I would not treat this as a rule to be applied to all people who meet the criteria. There are a few extra things about Feministing that makes me call them cowards. They censor opposing view, they are obtuse and fling obscenities at their opponents, they seem to deal only with trivial crap and they pretty much symbolise the modern feminist sandy vagina method of complaining about nothing legitimate. Given all this, I have no doubts about calling them cowards.

If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Only if I don’t take on any larger issues. I do. Also there is a marked difference between an individual person passing comments on youtube as compared to an organisation with the goal of (supposedly) helping women. Given this your comparison of my situation to Feministing’s doesn’t hold up. People can focus on trivialities, we cannot go at 120mph all day, but if triviality is all you do, then I look down on that. This is why I have a certain disdain for people who read trash magazines all the time and never pick up anything better.

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

We hear a lot about women in the media, if the superficial crap that Feministing peddles doesn’t appear then there is a reason for it. Perhaps you could elaborate on what these issues actually are? Anyway, I content that a lot of silly commentary like Feministing’s does appear out there all over the place.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I cannot address reams of points of view in one video, that would make it long and unwatchable. The remit of the video was to make a point against Feministing so let it stand for what it attempts to do. I’ll make other videos on other days about some of what you said there.

Also to brand things such as pornography evil is an arrogant presumption that will not be left standing here. A man stamping on his daughter’s neck because of his religion and bigotry is inherently evil and thus I label it as such. Whereas a woman in a free society making her own decisions as to what to do with her own body and choosing to be filmed having sex and making quite a bit of money doing so.. Is not being oppressed. And to label a situation such as this “evil” is to display your real contempt for women’s choices. I, like many other MRA’s don’t want to “turn back the clock” and remove women’s rights like you apparently want to do.

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

That was clever. Ooh, but I cannot complain because you didn’t tell me this apparently. I might as well tell you that you are a presumptuous unwise dishonest fool who has bought a pack of lies.. But I’m not going to. (beat that)

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

This is what I mean by ascribing imbecility to me. To believe this I would have to be an idiot, and I didn’t say this but you assume I am an idiot because I hold different beliefs to you. This is a character flaw of collectivists and you need to get it sorted.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I wouldn’t say that I have such a cause, but more importantly your statement that “you have not experienced what inequality really is” is the most presumptuous thing you have said so far, you know nothing about me and whilst I have suffered no serious oppressions, men are certainly more oppressed than women in modern western societies. You need to watch my video “men are more oppressed than women” for this proof.

Sincerely,
Mark

God or pilot?

ArgusEyes — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:40:37 GMT

Most of you should know about the plane that was "landed" in the Hudson river. There was a bird strike event where a flock of birds caned both engines, then the pilot made the decision to land the plane on the river. Everyone survived thanks to the pilot and there has been much said about his actions, but there has also been an annoying undercurrent of talk about "miracles" and "God". Case in point, check out the title of this BBC Piece

Pilot hailed for 'Hudson miracle'

Source: BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7832439.stm

A miracle is an event that so surpasses natural powers as to be an act of the supernatural. What part of this surpasses all known natural laws? It was spectacular but perfectly possible to do. Also, ascribing this to god is to spit in the face of the pilot who did the work, the rescue workers and the collective human sophistication that creates such stable flying machines.

It's the same thing where people say "the miracle of birth". I don’t think anything qualifies more as a natural law.. Than reproduction. And to label such things as miracles is to take serious liberties with the English language.

If you’re going to protest then don’t misspell your sign

ArgusEyes — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:49:38 GMT

Don't you love that other guy grabbing the sign.. He's like, "Dude, get that shit out of here before someone takes a picture of it". Whoops.

Get real "Isreal". You too will soon be "exstinct".

Whatever that is.

Animals

ArgusEyes — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:32:48 GMT

We are still primitive apes.

In politics, does race trump gender?

ArgusEyes — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:21:41 GMT

From politico is a story called "In politics, does race trump gender?". The abstract of the story is essentially that Roland Burris has had an easy time getting into the U.S. senate whilst Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time, is proof that race trumps gender.

How come Roland Burris has had such an easy time getting to the U.S. Senate while Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time?

Could it be that the race card trumps the gender card in U.S. politics?

Well, yes. It could be.

Source: Roger Simon, Politico In politics, does race trump gender?

Of course, I don't know how anyone who at least casually observes the modern zeitgeist can not have come to this conclusion a long time ago. The feeling of Barack Obama as a black man far outweighed that for Hillary Clinton as a white woman. Race and gender have political civil rights movements which advocate for them. For blacks it doesn't have a colloquial name but for women it's feminism.

Feminism is generally given less shrift than black civil rights because anyone with the brain power of a plum can identify that the pandered middle class women of the mid 20th century who started the movement were about as oppressed as my big toe. The blacks had far more genuine and repressive acts committed against them in the past whereas the egregious oppression against women I can think of would be the denial of suffrage and even that does not compare to slavery or the enforcement of the lower status of your entire race. Also, blacks are a genuine minority whereas women are a literal majority whose supposed oppressions are actually benefits that raise them above men, such as chivalry.

People who commit anti-pc acts against blacks suffer far more repercussions than those who do so against women. I hope I shouldn't need to belabour this point. Would an anti-black version of Tom Leykis be allowed to exist in our modern cultures? There are examples on both side but I think that the outrage at anti-black comments (real or imagined) is far larger than for anti-women comments.

So blacks have more advocacies for them and you don't need to look at Roland Burris to realise this. The point that is not mentioned in this article is that both groups have a "victim card" over white males. We have so many victim groups that we can judge the degree to which cards they play can act over the other victim groups. Enough of this rubbish already!.

Oh, and if anyone needs more proof that race trumps gender, may I present my final and definitive evidence.

Proof by star trek bitch!
B.T.W. the guy at the beginning should be at the end if you want to consider it from the perspective of the chronological making of the T.V. series. Is this a portent for the men's movement?

The state of Mississippi fronts the next attack on evolution

ArgusEyes — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:36:51 GMT

I heard of this story via Pharyngula, the state of Mississippi is the latest front in the attack on evolution by taking up the previously tried (and failed) tactics of adding disclaimers to any textbook that includes the teaching of evolution. This is stated in House Bill 25 under section 1 to take effect after July 1, 2009. The bill itself states:

SECTION 1. The State Board of Education shall require every textbook that includes the teaching of evolution in its contents to include the following language on the inside front cover of the textbook: