Entries Tagged 'General comment' ↓

I don’t know where I got this, but I think it’s hilarious.

The Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse

I got into a discussion about declawing cats on another forum.  I once had a cat that I had declawed.  The time was I wouldn’t give it much more thought than sterilization.

The cat bitches, as I can call anyone I fucking want on my own blog, were meat eaters, and were perfectly happy sterilizing their cats, than had the gall to tell everyone how cruel declawing is for cats.

They had a real tendency to use emotionally charged words to describe declawing.  A couple of them also tended to write in absolutes such as, “All cats suffer crippling effects… blah, blah, blah”.

Not a fucking one of them could cite a real peer reviewed study looking at the complications of declawing, and another looking at say, sterilization.  Nor could they seem to get their cat sized brains around the hypocrisy they are displaying when they hide behind cruelty as a reason not to declaw while munching away on their dead animal of choice.

Now, I eat meat.  Not a lot, but I eat meat.  I’ve killed plenty of my own meat as well.  I know perfectly well where it comes from and how it gets into my belly.  I also sterilize my pets.  Both of these are visiting some measurable amount of cruelty to animals.

So, I’m not about to tell anyone not to declaw because it’s cruel to cats.  I will not be that hypocrite.  No, I would have to simply explain how it is unnecessary.  Being unnecessary, it is unethical.  There is just no compelling reason to declaw an animal.  We humans are considerably more clever than any cat, so we should be able to figure out a way to get them to do what we want without cutting bits off of them.

I will be pleased to entertain any discussion about my justification for recommending against declawing.  But, unless you’re a vegetarian that doesn’t sterilize your pets, I don’t need to hear about your thoughts on cruelty.

I have been involved in a couple of very good threads on Richard Dawkins’ forum.  Not yet as a subject matter expert, but in whatever contributions I may make in keeping the antagonist on track, logically.  I’ve learned very much.

First, they don’t tolerate ad hominem attacks.  At all.  Five warnings in a year and your banned.  Forever.  And woe to anyone who registers a different username and operates as a “sock puppet”.

The purpose is to promote the discussion of ideas, not attack the people.  Very effective.

Now, I fast forward to my hometown newspaper opinions page.  This was one of the first forums I started posting in regularly.  I have to report I have NEVER got an actual response that passed logical muster there to one of my comments.  Time and again, in the face of airtight logical constructs, the other common users there would usually simply ignore them and babble on, or they’d end up calling me names.

The last straw for me there was today.  One of the weekly contributors to the opinions section is apparently an old woman who writes the inspirational page for her church program.  That article gets published every Monday in the opinions section of the online paper.  Usually, I have nothing to say about them, it’s just an old woman preaching to the converted.

This week, there was a user that expressed his weariness for her articles.  Of course, another user chimed in with his defense of the little old christian lady, and called the other guy a few names.

I thought it time to comment how the little old lady wasn’t immune from comment in a public forum.  I also added that others’ criticism was just as valid as the tripe she regularly contributes.

The paper censored that post and didn’t publish it.

Clearly, I commented on her articles, and said nothing about her personally.  But apparently, in small town Wisconsin, the editors don’t bother themselves with a fair forum.  Faced with this, and the fact that I seem to be utterly wasting my time and effort there, I think I’ll just leave them to their own devices.

I am not sure at all that it is even possible to deconvert a true believer.  I think it is very unlikely and rare.

So, I will retire from reading and commenting on my hometown news.  I haven’t lived there in 27 years, I never will again.  I have no stake in what happens there.  It’s simply not worth the effort to comment in their online newspaper.

Instead, I’ll be found here and on other forums where the free exchange of ideas is the rule rather than the exception.  See you around.

Sally Bair, the weekly hometown evangelist in my hometown newspaper, the Ashland Daily Press, has an article that has earned my wroth.  Normally, I am happy to let her speak, so that all may know she is mad.  But this post warranted a response:

“Are we trying to hide from God?

‘Eternal Perspectives’ by Sally Bair

As I pulled weeds in a neglected area behind my garden, a huge toad startled me when he jumped on my foot. Camouflaged by his color, he had been hiding in the tall weeds. During my weed-pulling session, I came across an array of other small critters, too — beetles, mosquitoes, slugs, and more. All hiding in the weeds.

I probably didn’t make any of them happy, exposing them as I did to the glaring sunlight and stealing their cover. Critters hide for many reasons: because their bodies dry out from the sunlight, because they find the best food in the cracks and crevices they inhabit, or because they want to remain safe from enemies.

We humans like to hide in the weeds, too. We hide behind our lies to protect our image of being a good person or to prevent punishment from someone in authority.

At age three, my older sister broke a dish. Mom asked her, “Did you do that?”

She answered, “Did you see me do it?”

“No,” my mom told her.

“Then I didn’t do it.”

We are also guilty of hiding behind our family name to gain prestige. Or behind our busyness so others won’t see our broken hearts or our sins. We’re all guilty of hiding behind someone or something to get what we believe we need. Hiding can take the form of control.  It’s easy to manipulate the thoughts or feelings of someone, to point our finger at the innocent so we’re not blamed for something we said or did, or to offer a fake smile behind our anger or unforgiveness.

One reason people don’t read their Bibles, don’t attend church, or worse, don’t believe in God, is because they would rather hide behind some excuse. They’re afraid that if exposed to God’s revealing word, they’ll have to face their sins and that may be too painful.

But unlike the critters that hide in the weeds, we won’t dry out from the sun, lose out on the best food, or face our enemies alone if we expose ourselves to God’s word and presence. In fact, we’ll have access to his living water and the nourishment of his word. We’ll also find safety from our three worst enemies: sin, self, and Satan.

Lord, keep us from hiding from Your salvation and truth. Give us strength to expose our sins to you so we may be nourished with Your perfect love, joy, and peace. In Jesus’ name, amen.”

Her third from last paragraph is what I responded to.  Here’s my reply:

“Sally, you normally preach to the converted.  But when you start writing about what motivates atheists, I suspect you have no idea what you’re writing about.  I’ll break it down.”

Firstly, you speak about a lack of belief in a god as if that’s some sort of action that requires an excuse, as if we’re “supposed” to believe in a god.  Fine, let’s explore that.  Which god, yours?  Then, why that god?  Or, why not any of the other 20 thousand or so gods that men have written about?

Next, you seem to believe atheists fear exposure to your god’s word.  Tell me, do you fear exposure to the word of Vishnu?  Or say, Thor?  Honestly, why not?  I’ll answer for you, tell me if I’m wrong.  You are absolutely certain that Vishnu and Thor do not exist.  There is therefore, nothing to fear, is there?  Sorry, we’re bouncing back to my first rebuttal now, but why exactly do you believe your god exists, but all others do not?  There is an equal amount of evidence supporting the existence of all of them.

Finally, you surmise that atheists couldn’t stand the pain of facing their “sins”.  What makes a sin, exactly?  Doing something that is against your god’s moral code would qualify.  Ahh, but even you know very well you cherry pick which of the 600 or so directives you choose to obey.  Never mind those actions that are sins against gods you don’t happen to believe in.  There are a couple major types of sins.  Those that are only against god, and those that are against both god and man.  For example, having no other gods, no idols, taking god’s name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy, those are actions that purely annoy god.  Other men couldn’t care less if you do these things.  Murder, theft, and false witness are in another class entirely.  Breaking those moral codes actually have an effect on your fellow man.

But, there’s a concept you don’t understand about atheism.  Disregarding the sins against god, which have no meaning to an atheist anyway (in exactly the same way that eating beef has no meaning to you, but is unthinkable to a Hindu), atheists are absolutely forced to face their own crimes.  There is no get out of jail free card that absolves an atheist from his actions.  No, methinks it is the theists who are afraid of facing the consequences of their actions by themselves.

Of course, I can’t speak for all atheists.  We have no grand unified code of ethics.  Any other atheists out there willing to comment?”

Waddya think?  There’s no chance of de-converting this person or likely anyone who reads and agrees with her proselytizing.  But, I’m not about to go away quietly into the night, either.  We’ll see what rattles loose from the tree back home.

I ran into some instructions on the web on how to get excommunicated from the Catholic church. I was surprised how difficult it was. They sure seem to want to do everything they can to keep you on their rolls.

So I was curious, what would it take to get excommunicated from the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod? Would it be so difficult? Apparently not. Here’s the email exchange about my request to be excommunicated:

“Hello, I was baptised in Ashland, Wisconsin at
Zion Lutheran Church in 1963. I am an atheist and wish to be
excommunicated. This is not a joke. What must I do?”

“Dear Jesse, thank you for contacting the LCMS Church Information Center.
There is nothing to do. By not attending services, you have chosen to
voluntarily sever your connection with the church.

Blessings on your day! Joy and peace in Christ,

Diane
LCMS Church Information Center”

What do you know about that? Nothing to it! I’m out! Or, am I? I’d bet any amount I could waltz straight in to any LCMS church in the world and they’d be happy to have my “offerings”. I found nothing on the LCMS web site discussing excommunication.

I don’t think they have any system of internal checks at all.

Wait a minute. That means they could be infiltrated, doesn’t it? Who’s to say it hasn’t already happened? We could walk among them, undetected. For whatever good it would do.

I was reading another article in my hometown newspaper today, this one about a Christian youth organization in northern Wisconsin calling itself BAYNET (Bay Area Youth Network).  The bay they claim is called Chequamegon Bay on Lake Superior.

On it’s face, this group sounds like they actually do something of value in the community.  So, what’s the harm, eh?  Probably not much.  There were a couple of quotes that raised my ire.

The first quote is the one that speaks to my title for this post.  The BAYNET founder and leader, Joe Mousseau, “a native of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, had originally come to the bay area in 1997 as an intern with Washburn Assembly of God while a student at North Central University in Minneapolis, working on a theology degree.”  In the previous paragraph, Joe says:  ”I came here with the goal of working with students. I’ve always wanted to work with them; it’s always been a dream of mine.” 

Motive and means.  Get ‘em while they’re young, vulnerable, and a teen.  That’s a hell of a confusing time in life.  There could hardly be a better time to indoctrinate kids.  That’s the cynic in me.  I don’t doubt Joe really means well for the kids who participate in his program.  I also don’t doubt that Joe wouldn’t lose a lot of sleep if a few happened to join his church on the way.

The first hit on google for the definition of cynical is:   …”believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others”  My wife says “That’s you.”.

The second quote that drew my ire is this:  Joe says:  ”We want to give students options, to stay away from at-risk activities like promiscuity, alcohol and drugs.”  Then, a couple paragraphs later:  ”…it is a fact that kids who have some kind of a faith system in their life are less likely to engage in those at-risk activities.”  What?  Of course he means “…less likely than kids without some kind of faith system in their lives”.  He makes this statement of fact without citing any references.  As I write this, I have no sources to dispute his “fact”.  I’ll dig that up soon and post a follow up.

The article also goes on to say that “in recent graduating classes at Ashland and Washburn high schools, …five out of six valedictorians were members of BAYNET.” as was a local Teenager of the Year.  Confusing correlation with causation?

But again, the cynical side of me tells me Joe is making up this fact to justify a wee bit of proselytizing.  Say it isn’t so, Joe.

In my hometown newspaper’s online edition opinions page, there are any number of topics of interest to a small town.  One that has showed up a few times in recent weeks is about attempts to ban smoking in  bars and restaurants in Wisconsin.  I can’t seem to find any actual proposed legislation, though.

There are a few tired arguments that always, always, always rear their ugly heads.  1.  The guv’mint can’t tell us what to do on our private property.  2.  We have a “right to smoke”.  3.  If you don’t like the smoke, don’t go to bars.

I wonder if I’m wrong, but here are my answers to those three arguments.

1.  Of course the guv’mint can, and does, tell you what you can and can’t do on your own private property.  Try building without a permit, or not following building codes.  See how far you get draining wetlands on your own property.  The list goes on and on…

2.  I don’t think so.  This seems to be in the same boat as alcohol or heroin for that matter.  Do you have a “right” to use cocaine?  Maybe, maybe not.  I think probably not.

3.  Since when do these tiny minded smokers seem to think they get to name the genre of establishments they choose to infest to make this argument?  What’s to stop the smokers from deciding to hang out in bowling alleys instead of bars, then tell the rest of us “If you don’t like the smoke, don’t go bowling!”  Bullshit.

I read one of the best defenses for smoking I’ve heard so far recently.  One of the local dumbasses actually said he used to smoke because of his “persuit of happiness”.  What a load of shit.  What better way to show your agreement and support of the Declaration of Independence than to take up smoking?

I quit smoking ten years ago.  I started by experimenting with it with friends, then in the usual VERY short amount of time, was addicted.  I quit seriously three times.  The first two times, I “un”quit by just having one here and there after not touching one for over a year.  It takes even less time to become addicted again at that point.  No, I am quite certain the only way to stay smoke free is to really not have one again.  Ever.

Pity.  I sure enjoyed a good cigar.  And in Europe, I can get the good ones. But, they’re more expensive than drugs.

Anyone else fool around with tobacco and finally quit?  How many times did you try?

One more question.  Can anyone think of a single socially beneficial thing to come from tobacco and its use?

We took Tom Flynn’s advice and completely gave christmas a miss this year.  It was great!  Thanks, Tom!

Our annual big day was Darwin Day, February 12.  For our Darwin Day equivalent of the christmas feast, we had spaghetti and meatballs in a tip of the hat to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The big gift for my five year old boy was a stereo microscope.  10X and 30X, with a set of 15X eyepieces as well.  I didn’t buy a cheap toy scope, but a proper dissection microscope.  It will serve us for years, I’m sure.  I also got him a box of insects cast in resin.  The cast quality isn’t that great, but they are adequate.

Something I noticed about all the bugs is the two hooks they all have on the ends of their feet.  Wasp, cricket, locust, spider, housefly, flower bug, scorpion, and ant.  All have those nice two hooks on the end of each foot.  Seems like the common bug ancestor must have worked out that two hooks pretty much get it on our planet and the design seems to have stuck.  Obviously, my tiny collection isn’t enough to draw too many conclusions, but that sure seems like a positive correlation to me.

Today, my boy proudly told us he wants to poo on a plate so he can put some under the microscope to look at it.  I guess I better get some slide making materials.

I wonder if anyone else celebrates Darwin Day as their big annual christmas replacement therapy day.

I wanted to mention I got the inspiration for my site name from the Skepbitch.  Also, from the Skepchick and Skepdude calendars.  I always thought the Skepdude calendars should have been titled “Skepdick” calendars.  Rhymes with Skepchick, you know.

The Skepbitch gets first place in my links sidebar.  Thanks for the inspiration, Dr!