We use a lot of extra things to keep our children safe on the playgrounds; flexible rubber mats, air-cushioned surfaces just to name a couple.
Are we doing a disservice to our children by protecting them so much? I think so.
Children need to get hurt on accident when doing kid activities for a variety of reasons; to learn their limits, to learn that just because something is fun doesn't mean it isn't dangerous or potentially painful as well, that jumping from a one-inch diameter tube or rail to another probably won't end well, swinging way passed the bar of the swing set could end with a sore bum and bloody hands and forearms. They need to learn that there are downsides to fun and upsides to playing it safe.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Salud, Kevorkian
Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the leader in the humane treatment to the terminally ill or of a painfully old ago.
Murder? No, murder implies it wasn't wanted. Assisted suicide? No, that implies he helped the patient in the process, but he did not, he just set the machine up. Avatar of the right to die? Oh yes. Everyone has the right to die, no matter what their religion feels is morally correct; law != religiously moral.
I may not have necessarily agreed with the method (the Thanatron wasn't too bad, but the Mercitron was) due to the length of dying and the pain of asphyxiation. While it is believed that some suffer from a certain euphoria, it is usually an interruption between severe pains. While I realize any more involvement on Kevorkian's part could be perceived as murder, as the patient wasn't the one throwing the switch, there were better ways to do it (IV to the jugular, not the arm for instance).
It is unfortunate people don't want the right to die legalized, at least until they are in the situation in which it would be utilized; people just think about themselves, not the person dying. Why should the living suffer from having their relative with them no longer through artificial means when they could linger for months or years, fuck the pain, and die naturally, you know, how God intended? I think they're also afraid of the abuses, but the abusers wouldn't need any right to die laws in order to put something like that into effect. We sure are a selfish, narrow-minded lot.
Murder? No, murder implies it wasn't wanted. Assisted suicide? No, that implies he helped the patient in the process, but he did not, he just set the machine up. Avatar of the right to die? Oh yes. Everyone has the right to die, no matter what their religion feels is morally correct; law != religiously moral.
I may not have necessarily agreed with the method (the Thanatron wasn't too bad, but the Mercitron was) due to the length of dying and the pain of asphyxiation. While it is believed that some suffer from a certain euphoria, it is usually an interruption between severe pains. While I realize any more involvement on Kevorkian's part could be perceived as murder, as the patient wasn't the one throwing the switch, there were better ways to do it (IV to the jugular, not the arm for instance).
It is unfortunate people don't want the right to die legalized, at least until they are in the situation in which it would be utilized; people just think about themselves, not the person dying. Why should the living suffer from having their relative with them no longer through artificial means when they could linger for months or years, fuck the pain, and die naturally, you know, how God intended? I think they're also afraid of the abuses, but the abusers wouldn't need any right to die laws in order to put something like that into effect. We sure are a selfish, narrow-minded lot.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Reply to "The Danger of Science 'Denialism'"
I posted the link to the article I am responding to and you can access it by clicking on the topic.(though I doubt they will ever read this, but since this blog is purely for my own gratification, that's irrelevant).
The biggest portion I have troubles with is an issue that I have blogged about in the past: accept proof as truth. The problem with this particular declaration is that proof is biased itself. We have proof that the universe is expanding, that the universe is shrinking, that God (Yahweh) exists, that God doesn't exist, that evolution exists, that evolution doesn't exist, that black people have an average IQ of 62, that black people of have an average IQ on par with the world average (89). We can present "proof" without third person verification and people are supposed to accept it? We present "proof" from highly biased experiments or tests and people are supposed to accept it as fact? I don't think so. The article also demands that we ask for evidence. Evidence is likewise easily skewed. The article says to ask questions. We can ask and ask and ask, but that doesn't mean we will get answers, much less correct answers or answers that answer that which we ask (non sequitur).
I do have to agree with the article on some points, however. People don't ask questions, don't try to find evidence or proof. People won't accept anything radically different than what they have been taught or come to accept as true and that is certainly a problem; it will certainly hinder human progress, as the article puts it.
The article also touches on people not accepting scientific findings because of the government and corporations. They shouldn't just accept the findings, no matter what, but the government and big corporations have suppressed evidence and skewed tests/results more than enough times that it is a warranted reason to deny what is presented because we don't know what has been suppressed (if anything), or what was manufactured merely to give the conclusion that government/corporations wanted.
"Unfortunately, this fear is motivating people to replace science with a belief in magic, from seemingly harmless magic such as Ginkgo biloba, echinacia, and açaí, to tragic magic such as using coffee enemas to cure cancer, or even insisting that beet root can cure HIV. People fight genetically engineered food, and think it's wrong to patent life and crop seeds -- and they blame science for these problems. But these issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, not science." Interesting, I think. People fight engineered food because they don't know how it was changed and don't think they'll get an honest response if they ask, not to mention how engineered foods may react to their body's chemistry relative to non-engineered foods. The "magics" are used just as much because they are cheaper as it is a matter of actual belief in their curative properties. Ever heard of the placebo effect? Enough placebo episodes are considered proof by some of their effectiveness. Isn't that what science can be, according to this article? The article is rather paranoid, to an extent, as well. To some those issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, but not most; it's about poor science from mainstream sources, poor science put into popular "knowledge" and correct science being suppressed.
The biggest portion I have troubles with is an issue that I have blogged about in the past: accept proof as truth. The problem with this particular declaration is that proof is biased itself. We have proof that the universe is expanding, that the universe is shrinking, that God (Yahweh) exists, that God doesn't exist, that evolution exists, that evolution doesn't exist, that black people have an average IQ of 62, that black people of have an average IQ on par with the world average (89). We can present "proof" without third person verification and people are supposed to accept it? We present "proof" from highly biased experiments or tests and people are supposed to accept it as fact? I don't think so. The article also demands that we ask for evidence. Evidence is likewise easily skewed. The article says to ask questions. We can ask and ask and ask, but that doesn't mean we will get answers, much less correct answers or answers that answer that which we ask (non sequitur).
I do have to agree with the article on some points, however. People don't ask questions, don't try to find evidence or proof. People won't accept anything radically different than what they have been taught or come to accept as true and that is certainly a problem; it will certainly hinder human progress, as the article puts it.
The article also touches on people not accepting scientific findings because of the government and corporations. They shouldn't just accept the findings, no matter what, but the government and big corporations have suppressed evidence and skewed tests/results more than enough times that it is a warranted reason to deny what is presented because we don't know what has been suppressed (if anything), or what was manufactured merely to give the conclusion that government/corporations wanted.
"Unfortunately, this fear is motivating people to replace science with a belief in magic, from seemingly harmless magic such as Ginkgo biloba, echinacia, and açaí, to tragic magic such as using coffee enemas to cure cancer, or even insisting that beet root can cure HIV. People fight genetically engineered food, and think it's wrong to patent life and crop seeds -- and they blame science for these problems. But these issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, not science." Interesting, I think. People fight engineered food because they don't know how it was changed and don't think they'll get an honest response if they ask, not to mention how engineered foods may react to their body's chemistry relative to non-engineered foods. The "magics" are used just as much because they are cheaper as it is a matter of actual belief in their curative properties. Ever heard of the placebo effect? Enough placebo episodes are considered proof by some of their effectiveness. Isn't that what science can be, according to this article? The article is rather paranoid, to an extent, as well. To some those issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, but not most; it's about poor science from mainstream sources, poor science put into popular "knowledge" and correct science being suppressed.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Cancer
Supposedly, people get cancer because of mutations to the genes, including oncogenes and tumor suppressing genes. I'm curious, then, why they haven't use gene replacement therapy for cancer treatment; after all, if you can replace the faulty oncogenes and tumor suppressing genes with working ones, wouldn't the cancer at least stop spreading, if not get rid of it all together?
I wish I had done more research on genes, gene splicing and gene replacement therapy. Even still, I'm sure there is another way to make genes more sturdy, more stable and less likely to mutate beyond things like vitamin A, or different option, add a gene or two that regulates the other genes to be sure that they stay how they were originally, or at least when they were healthy (inhibitions on carcinogenesis?). I should research this...
After a little bit of research, I have concluded some gene therapy/genetic splicing involving the cell replication process of earthworms is the best way to go to defeat cancer; due to their cell replication speed, they are the only species not to have cancer remain beyond the very beginning stages, in which no damage is done to the creature. It appears as if we have the technology to do this, at least in vitro, to prevent cancer, as well as to use this in a manner similar to stem cells to replace cancerous organs with healthy organs. The only real problem I can foresee is that it will affect aging, either speeding it up or greatly slowing down the process due to the speed of the cells' replication and, therefore, DNA breakdown speeds from constant, high speed translations.
I wish I had done more research on genes, gene splicing and gene replacement therapy. Even still, I'm sure there is another way to make genes more sturdy, more stable and less likely to mutate beyond things like vitamin A, or different option, add a gene or two that regulates the other genes to be sure that they stay how they were originally, or at least when they were healthy (inhibitions on carcinogenesis?). I should research this...
After a little bit of research, I have concluded some gene therapy/genetic splicing involving the cell replication process of earthworms is the best way to go to defeat cancer; due to their cell replication speed, they are the only species not to have cancer remain beyond the very beginning stages, in which no damage is done to the creature. It appears as if we have the technology to do this, at least in vitro, to prevent cancer, as well as to use this in a manner similar to stem cells to replace cancerous organs with healthy organs. The only real problem I can foresee is that it will affect aging, either speeding it up or greatly slowing down the process due to the speed of the cells' replication and, therefore, DNA breakdown speeds from constant, high speed translations.
Negation in Mathematics
-1*-1 = 1 Right? I don't think so!
Why does -1*-1 = 1? I have searched and searched the internet for an answer, but nothing has come up with a satisfactory answer; they're all based on how English operates or they just say "math will break without it." Why would math break without it?
I think it is just based on English, or to sum it up, a linguistic translation into a mathematical operation.
Negation in math fails, particularly in economics. Let us say I owe a company $100 so my current balance would be $-100. If I tell them I'll pay them $-100, would that mean that they would pay me $-100? I think not; I would still owe them $100. Another example would be in electronics; a negative charge with a negative charge just repels each other, it doesn't combine into a positive charge.
A mathematical translation from a linguistic operation indeed.
Why does -1*-1 = 1? I have searched and searched the internet for an answer, but nothing has come up with a satisfactory answer; they're all based on how English operates or they just say "math will break without it." Why would math break without it?
I think it is just based on English, or to sum it up, a linguistic translation into a mathematical operation.
Negation in math fails, particularly in economics. Let us say I owe a company $100 so my current balance would be $-100. If I tell them I'll pay them $-100, would that mean that they would pay me $-100? I think not; I would still owe them $100. Another example would be in electronics; a negative charge with a negative charge just repels each other, it doesn't combine into a positive charge.
A mathematical translation from a linguistic operation indeed.
Manned Mission to Mars
It has been dreamed about, thought about, written about and had films about, but it has never been done. Colonize or explore? Science or socio-economical? Long-term (10+ years) or short-term? All questions asked and explored. As anyone with any interest in space science that writes anything, I shall explore the possibilities myself, if that hadn't been clear by the title of this post.
The first thing is that it should be done with one to two short-term stays in preparation for the final long-term stay. The two short-term stays would be smaller vessels that would carry equipment for both scientific exploration of the planet as well as housing and, I'm sure it could be done, a greenhouse. It's too bad we can't beam forward some medieval peasants and have them go along - they could help build some nice walls and such there, too. Heh. No? Fine. The short trips would be purely for setup, staying the minimum length of time possible while still being able to do what needs to be done in preparation.
The long term stay would need a huge ship (5 times bigger, perhaps) for both shelter in case the one set up by the previous visits falters, food storage, safety in case of terribly inclement weather, a place to input scientific data and communicate with Earth or/and a space station, as well as carry inside of it a small vessel that would be capable of getting them off of the planet and close enough to Earth (though preferably all the way) so they can rendezvous with a shuttle to bring them back to Earth's surface.
Really, there should be a space station set into orbit around Mars before sending the long-term shuttle, for a variety of reasons. Safety, weather updates, communication, data transmissions, a refueling point for any shuttles going to and from the surface. Ideally, it would work as a dock for a space shuttle that would be parked there for the surface-dwellers in case something goes awry without using the long-term spacecraft's space on a space faring vessel in its hulls.
Terraforming would be ideal, but I'm not so sure it would be good for the first set of long-term Mars residents. The third, really, so we know for sure that we can be there without too many problems that we can't counter.
In terms of location for the settlement, we should probably go Apache or Comanche style - built partially in rocky mountain/cliff face for extra shelter and support. I can't imagine anything else would be able to stay up, at least at first, without natural assistance. The people staying long-term could even put together shelters away from such outcroppings while they are there.
Number of people: ~125. Deaths will happen. Procreation will probably need to happen. 50 "civilians", 20 doctors, 25 scientists in various areas, 20 people able in building things (particularly buildings) and 5 botanists to take care of the plants in the greenhouse(s).
The greenhouse(s) would be needed for a few reasons - 1) food, 2) getting more O2 into the air, and 3) a little taste of home for the psychological state of the settlers.
The first thing is that it should be done with one to two short-term stays in preparation for the final long-term stay. The two short-term stays would be smaller vessels that would carry equipment for both scientific exploration of the planet as well as housing and, I'm sure it could be done, a greenhouse. It's too bad we can't beam forward some medieval peasants and have them go along - they could help build some nice walls and such there, too. Heh. No? Fine. The short trips would be purely for setup, staying the minimum length of time possible while still being able to do what needs to be done in preparation.
The long term stay would need a huge ship (5 times bigger, perhaps) for both shelter in case the one set up by the previous visits falters, food storage, safety in case of terribly inclement weather, a place to input scientific data and communicate with Earth or/and a space station, as well as carry inside of it a small vessel that would be capable of getting them off of the planet and close enough to Earth (though preferably all the way) so they can rendezvous with a shuttle to bring them back to Earth's surface.
Really, there should be a space station set into orbit around Mars before sending the long-term shuttle, for a variety of reasons. Safety, weather updates, communication, data transmissions, a refueling point for any shuttles going to and from the surface. Ideally, it would work as a dock for a space shuttle that would be parked there for the surface-dwellers in case something goes awry without using the long-term spacecraft's space on a space faring vessel in its hulls.
Terraforming would be ideal, but I'm not so sure it would be good for the first set of long-term Mars residents. The third, really, so we know for sure that we can be there without too many problems that we can't counter.
In terms of location for the settlement, we should probably go Apache or Comanche style - built partially in rocky mountain/cliff face for extra shelter and support. I can't imagine anything else would be able to stay up, at least at first, without natural assistance. The people staying long-term could even put together shelters away from such outcroppings while they are there.
Number of people: ~125. Deaths will happen. Procreation will probably need to happen. 50 "civilians", 20 doctors, 25 scientists in various areas, 20 people able in building things (particularly buildings) and 5 botanists to take care of the plants in the greenhouse(s).
The greenhouse(s) would be needed for a few reasons - 1) food, 2) getting more O2 into the air, and 3) a little taste of home for the psychological state of the settlers.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Mathematical Theory
In school, we are taught mathematics. 2+2=1 and all of that jazz. Unfortunately, we are never taught that outside of things like money, maths is purely theoretical with no true basis in reality. Money, obviously, is very clear cut on what is one cent and what is not. In things like measurements in engineering or architecture or whatever, there is no such things as precisely one inch; you may have to look closely or have an aide to help you see better, but it is impossible for something to be one inch. In geometry, if you try to calculate the measurements of a triangle using two sides, you'll never be able to get a correct answer (in reality) because the measurements they give you aren't correct.
The way maths are taught in schools is great for learning formulae and practice the best ways for you to get an answer, but it really needs to be emphasized how truly incorrect the assertions they give you are once you get passed the formulae. It's frustrating when people don't understand why buildings fall when an earthquake happens or the wind is too strong or are hit too hard. Realistically, with the imperfect calculations we make using very rounded numbers (typically not smaller than 1/100), it isn't surprising at the poor infrastructure of our buildings. If we were precise enough in our measurements and our calculations to the nearest 1/100000000000 for everything we built, everything would be much more stable and sturdy. I realize that requires a lot more work, but wouldn't you think that using some effort would be more than worthwhile when creating the things we live in and use daily? Eh, I guess I am a dreamer, after all.
As an addendum, we are never explained the reasons for certain mathematical theories or procedures, like a negative number multiplied by a negative number equaling a positive number. This certainly doesn't work in the real world (like with money), or physics or chemistry.
The way maths are taught in schools is great for learning formulae and practice the best ways for you to get an answer, but it really needs to be emphasized how truly incorrect the assertions they give you are once you get passed the formulae. It's frustrating when people don't understand why buildings fall when an earthquake happens or the wind is too strong or are hit too hard. Realistically, with the imperfect calculations we make using very rounded numbers (typically not smaller than 1/100), it isn't surprising at the poor infrastructure of our buildings. If we were precise enough in our measurements and our calculations to the nearest 1/100000000000 for everything we built, everything would be much more stable and sturdy. I realize that requires a lot more work, but wouldn't you think that using some effort would be more than worthwhile when creating the things we live in and use daily? Eh, I guess I am a dreamer, after all.
As an addendum, we are never explained the reasons for certain mathematical theories or procedures, like a negative number multiplied by a negative number equaling a positive number. This certainly doesn't work in the real world (like with money), or physics or chemistry.
The Subject of Time
What is time? If you ask a random person, they will probably give you something to do with clocks, hours or the sun. It's interesting how people define something only by how it is measured. Some other responses will most likely be something along the lines of being nuclear, revolutions, Newtonian or a dimension. Nuclear is another method of measurement, as are revolutions. Newtonian is sequential event sets, typically predefined, especially after happening (they will always happen if you go back in time, the silly notion). A dimension narrows a definition of time down a little, but still doesn't describe it outside of being completely vague.
I am somewhat along the lines of Newtonian time.
Time is purely change. If nothing changes, then time hasn't "passed" so to speak. There is no time travel as you traveling would also be time "passage." The closest thing possible to time travel would be going to a point where things hadn't changed in a specific way yet, though there is certainly no guarantee of things changing to a specific way at all. Change is plastic.
We measure time for multiple reasons. The first is to standardize preset events, like sporting events or the opera. With standardization comes, to an extent, control over what is going on around you. We are certainly a species that is in love with controlling. The second is to put prior changes into perspective in terms of how much has changed between the history and the present, typically to give a lesson, but to also to help you supposedly understand where you came from, the why you came to be and why it is where you are. The third is to help us feel insignificant so we are more easily manipulated into believing in things that haven't changed or will endlessly change while still maintaining consciousness; a divine being or beings. It can make us feel quite insecure to realize when we die, things still change and before we came to be, things had changed, that we aren't in control, that we aren't all there is. As a species, we tend to need that kind of humility, though we certainly don't need the manipulation that is added by those looking to control or fill with a waffle of an answer on the questions of "how" and "why" to matters of existence.
Really, time is another example of Homo Sapiens arrogance. Time, according to us, revolves around us, or us it as it may be. We measure it purely by our perspective with no attempt at neutrality.
Time as a dimension is an interesting concept, really. Typically, we think of time as a dimension surrounding the others that we pass through. If time was a dimension, why couldn't the other dimensions encompass time and time passes through us? Better yet, with time surrounding the other dimensions, what if the other dimensions had already passed through time, but they are now just trying to catch up to where they are supposed to be after passing through time?
I'm sure the first rebuttal will be "what about memory?" Clearly, we can perceive change, otherwise we wouldn't have much of a personality, especially much diversity in personality. Since our memories are pretty much recordings of the change we have perceived, we can remember the changes that have gone previously (as imperfectly and incomplete as we do). Keep in mind, just because we remember a certain process of change doesn't mean that if we rewind the change, then interact with it as it goes on in a different manner, doesn't mean it would change in the same way. Plastic.
Having our measurements of time is important nowadays, though it certainly wasn't necessary 2,000 years ago. We didn't need any units of time to know when to grow or harvest our crops, as it would be apparent what needed to be done when after experiencing on meteorological cycle. Would we have developed time as things progressed if we hadn't done so as early as we did? Certainly, as it is now necessary when dealing with how our economy and social agendas are set up. We just need to remember that time is more than how we measure, but that it is, purely, change.
I am somewhat along the lines of Newtonian time.
Time is purely change. If nothing changes, then time hasn't "passed" so to speak. There is no time travel as you traveling would also be time "passage." The closest thing possible to time travel would be going to a point where things hadn't changed in a specific way yet, though there is certainly no guarantee of things changing to a specific way at all. Change is plastic.
We measure time for multiple reasons. The first is to standardize preset events, like sporting events or the opera. With standardization comes, to an extent, control over what is going on around you. We are certainly a species that is in love with controlling. The second is to put prior changes into perspective in terms of how much has changed between the history and the present, typically to give a lesson, but to also to help you supposedly understand where you came from, the why you came to be and why it is where you are. The third is to help us feel insignificant so we are more easily manipulated into believing in things that haven't changed or will endlessly change while still maintaining consciousness; a divine being or beings. It can make us feel quite insecure to realize when we die, things still change and before we came to be, things had changed, that we aren't in control, that we aren't all there is. As a species, we tend to need that kind of humility, though we certainly don't need the manipulation that is added by those looking to control or fill with a waffle of an answer on the questions of "how" and "why" to matters of existence.
Really, time is another example of Homo Sapiens arrogance. Time, according to us, revolves around us, or us it as it may be. We measure it purely by our perspective with no attempt at neutrality.
Time as a dimension is an interesting concept, really. Typically, we think of time as a dimension surrounding the others that we pass through. If time was a dimension, why couldn't the other dimensions encompass time and time passes through us? Better yet, with time surrounding the other dimensions, what if the other dimensions had already passed through time, but they are now just trying to catch up to where they are supposed to be after passing through time?
I'm sure the first rebuttal will be "what about memory?" Clearly, we can perceive change, otherwise we wouldn't have much of a personality, especially much diversity in personality. Since our memories are pretty much recordings of the change we have perceived, we can remember the changes that have gone previously (as imperfectly and incomplete as we do). Keep in mind, just because we remember a certain process of change doesn't mean that if we rewind the change, then interact with it as it goes on in a different manner, doesn't mean it would change in the same way. Plastic.
Having our measurements of time is important nowadays, though it certainly wasn't necessary 2,000 years ago. We didn't need any units of time to know when to grow or harvest our crops, as it would be apparent what needed to be done when after experiencing on meteorological cycle. Would we have developed time as things progressed if we hadn't done so as early as we did? Certainly, as it is now necessary when dealing with how our economy and social agendas are set up. We just need to remember that time is more than how we measure, but that it is, purely, change.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Homesexual Marriage Being Illegal or/and Anti-Religious
Sparked from a status message from my wife, people are quite unsure as to why homosexual Marriage is illegal here in the U.S. Pretty much everyone agrees the only reason is due to (Christian) religion. I disagree, though it may have some subconscious influence. I think the reasons are thus:
1) Procreation. Homosexual couples cannot have children without a heterosexual relationship and we sure needed our population to grow when the country first started (just like now, the government doesn't really count natives) to production up and to start up our economy, not to mention keep those going and expanding over time. We also needed personnel to fight against our various motherlands as well as the natives.
2) A range of discomfort to fear. For this, I should say, of being approached in hopes of starting a homosexual relationship, especially in a very forward manner. Most heterosexuals that are propositioned by those of the same gender are very uncomfortable when propositioned or, when around homosexuals, fear being propositioned.
3) Fear of the self. I can't say, first hand, about women, but I know most men, when they are first discovering themselves, fear they are homosexual and for a bunch, that fear never goes away (which is why calling someone gay, a fag, a homo, et al) is reacted so strongly to when used as an insult. The reasons for this fear is rooted in religion, though that isn't, shall we say, the (obvious) reason given. The reasons are the taboo of homosexuality, the fear on non conforming to what is the norm (heterosexuality), and social conditioning (from society, from parents, from friends, from T.V and many others I am sure). Unfortunately, all of those religions stem from religion. I'm sure some will say no, that our evolution created sense of procreation is also a reason, but I find that to be dubious as there is evidence of homosexuality in most animals as well as the beginning of written/drawn history.
More reasons will probably come up, though as I have shown, religion isn't the only reason for homosexual marriage being disallowed.
1) Procreation. Homosexual couples cannot have children without a heterosexual relationship and we sure needed our population to grow when the country first started (just like now, the government doesn't really count natives) to production up and to start up our economy, not to mention keep those going and expanding over time. We also needed personnel to fight against our various motherlands as well as the natives.
2) A range of discomfort to fear. For this, I should say, of being approached in hopes of starting a homosexual relationship, especially in a very forward manner. Most heterosexuals that are propositioned by those of the same gender are very uncomfortable when propositioned or, when around homosexuals, fear being propositioned.
3) Fear of the self. I can't say, first hand, about women, but I know most men, when they are first discovering themselves, fear they are homosexual and for a bunch, that fear never goes away (which is why calling someone gay, a fag, a homo, et al) is reacted so strongly to when used as an insult. The reasons for this fear is rooted in religion, though that isn't, shall we say, the (obvious) reason given. The reasons are the taboo of homosexuality, the fear on non conforming to what is the norm (heterosexuality), and social conditioning (from society, from parents, from friends, from T.V and many others I am sure). Unfortunately, all of those religions stem from religion. I'm sure some will say no, that our evolution created sense of procreation is also a reason, but I find that to be dubious as there is evidence of homosexuality in most animals as well as the beginning of written/drawn history.
More reasons will probably come up, though as I have shown, religion isn't the only reason for homosexual marriage being disallowed.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
The "Greatest" Man
I've noticed a lot of people posting a lot of rhetorical religious ignorance all over Facebook this year. "Greatest man in history, named Jesus, had no servants, yet they called him Master. Had no degree, yet they called him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet he conquered the world. He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today. ~ Re-post if you believe" Shall I break it down now, as the song goes?
"Greatest man in history, named Jesus" by itself is a false claim. In the Bible, what we take as "Jesus" is Ιησους in Greek (the language in which the New Testament was written). I-ei-s-o-u-sa would be its pronunciation. In every other place, beyond the Bible, that is translated as Joshua. In Hebrew, the same applies, though it is pronounced Y-e-sh-u-oa.
"Had no servants, yet they called him Master" is partially true, even if it was taken out of context. The word master used is the same as an apprentice would call their teacher - master. The word used is κύριος (kyrios). Masters of a trade never have servants, only apprentices. Theoretically, if the father, Joseph, was a carpenter, Joshua could have easily been considered a master carpenter.
"Had no degree, yet they called him Teacher" once again goes back to teacher. δάσκαλος (daskalos) is the word used, here, though it doesn't imply a master, just a more learned person. Well, no duh he had no degree; no person in that time period had a degree - they learned (the rich, anyway) were formally educated, everyone else was educated by a master of a trade (typically a family member, but not necessarily).
"Had no medicines, yet they called him Healer" is another statement of ignorance, as well as arrogance. They did have medicines back then, herbal in particular, that doctors still recommend to help you feel better or to prevent infection. Examples? Peppermint for upset stomachs. Chicken, honey, lemon for sore throats and coughs. Need I go on? I'm sure you're also asking in an exclamatory voice "WHAT ABOUT HEALING THE BLIND LOL!!!?!?!?!?!?!!!~!one" Simple. Who has heard of hypnosis? What about a somatoform (or conversion) disorder? Well, I shall endeavor to brighten the dim. Somatoform disorder - "is a mental disorder characterized by physical symptoms that suggest physical illness or injury - symptoms that cannot be explained fully by a general medical condition, direct effect of a substance, or attributable to another mental disorder (i.e. panic disorder).[1] The symptoms that result from a somatoform disorder are due to mental factors. In people who have a somatoform disorder, medical test results are either normal or do not explain the person's symptoms. Patients with this disorder often become worried about their health because the doctors are unable to find a cause for their health problems. Symptoms are sometimes similar to those of other illnesses and may last for several years.
"Greatest man in history, named Jesus" by itself is a false claim. In the Bible, what we take as "Jesus" is Ιησους in Greek (the language in which the New Testament was written). I-ei-s-o-u-sa would be its pronunciation. In every other place, beyond the Bible, that is translated as Joshua. In Hebrew, the same applies, though it is pronounced Y-e-sh-u-oa.
"Had no servants, yet they called him Master" is partially true, even if it was taken out of context. The word master used is the same as an apprentice would call their teacher - master. The word used is κύριος (kyrios). Masters of a trade never have servants, only apprentices. Theoretically, if the father, Joseph, was a carpenter, Joshua could have easily been considered a master carpenter.
"Had no degree, yet they called him Teacher" once again goes back to teacher. δάσκαλος (daskalos) is the word used, here, though it doesn't imply a master, just a more learned person. Well, no duh he had no degree; no person in that time period had a degree - they learned (the rich, anyway) were formally educated, everyone else was educated by a master of a trade (typically a family member, but not necessarily).
"Had no medicines, yet they called him Healer" is another statement of ignorance, as well as arrogance. They did have medicines back then, herbal in particular, that doctors still recommend to help you feel better or to prevent infection. Examples? Peppermint for upset stomachs. Chicken, honey, lemon for sore throats and coughs. Need I go on? I'm sure you're also asking in an exclamatory voice "WHAT ABOUT HEALING THE BLIND LOL!!!?!?!?!?!?!!!~!one" Simple. Who has heard of hypnosis? What about a somatoform (or conversion) disorder? Well, I shall endeavor to brighten the dim. Somatoform disorder - "is a mental disorder characterized by physical symptoms that suggest physical illness or injury - symptoms that cannot be explained fully by a general medical condition, direct effect of a substance, or attributable to another mental disorder (i.e. panic disorder).[1] The symptoms that result from a somatoform disorder are due to mental factors. In people who have a somatoform disorder, medical test results are either normal or do not explain the person's symptoms. Patients with this disorder often become worried about their health because the doctors are unable to find a cause for their health problems. Symptoms are sometimes similar to those of other illnesses and may last for several years.
Somatoform disorders are not the result of conscious malingering (fabricating or exaggerating symptoms for secondary motives) or factitious disorders (deliberately producing, feigning, or exaggerating symptoms) - sufferers perceive their plight as real. Additionally, a somatoform disorder should not be confused with the more specific diagnosis of a somatization disorder." n From Wikipedia, which was quoted almost directly from the official diagnosis manual (DSM) for psychiatric disorders. Essentially, you feel something that isn't there, usually because of an extreme emotions or sub-conscious that is trying to bring to your conscious mind (especially guilt). The example I was given in my Abnormal Psychology class was something like this - "A guy acted as a chant and meditation leader, and he would be holding a staff with a ball at the end that he would claim could heal people of their problems, then set up some fake examples by paying people to fake disease then 'heal' them with his staff and a little gibberish in Latin. After this, he would have people come forth. A person with a sore throat would come forward, he would place the staff at their throat and they would be 'healed'. Next, an older couple would come up, one of them being blind, he would place the staff between the blind man's eyes, and he would be 'healed'. A doubter of some repute as being knowledgeable about medicines and disease came the next gathering and proclaim that what the leader was false, but the leader said it wasn't and set out to prove it by calling forth another blind man. This blind man, though, doubted the leader now, and when the leader did his little ritual, the man was not healed, and people never came back to the leader."
"He had no army, yet kings feared Him" was more of a displacement of the fear. The kings (what kings? That area was controlled by the Roman Empire at that time, so no kings were present in that land, only Senators appointed by the Emperors Augustus and Tiberius) only feared the idea of him - the kings wanted peace in their land and to gather the tithes given by the peasants during the religious festivals. A religious leader with charisma was bound to rouse the rabble and stop people from giving tithes (think of the incident of Joshua throwing the tables over at the Temple). The Senators feared many people throughout the Empire's history, including their own family. Nothing special here, really.
"He had no army, but conquered the world" is an exaggeration. He didn't conquer anything himself, in person. Also, his followers sure didn't successfully spread his Word into Asia very well. Remember all of those Buddhists?
"He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him" is a statement of pure ignorance of Roman law. Roman law dictated that anyone not attending religious festivals or attempting to stop others, or otherwise interrupt would be fined and arrested. Repeat offenders could, depending on the severity, be killed or sent into one of the colosseums for sport. Another law was that anyone trying to cause an uprising against the Empire would be arrested and flogged for a moon cycle, with repeat offenders potentially being killed. These are the main two Roman laws Joshua broke - repeatedly.
"He was buried in a tomb, yet lives today" is another false translation. The word used here was σπήλαιο (stailaio), which translate, otherwise, into cave. Also, him being alive is false in all ways we define the term.
So, in summary, we are perpetuating a statement of faith about someone whose name we don't actually know, using poor translations of the words used without knowing anything that went on during that time period. Religion - the greatest zeitgeist ever created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)