We've all heard of opinions before. Mainly we've heard things like "there's no such thing as a wrong opinion" and "everybody has the right to their own opinion". Technically, I agree with these statements, however I disagree with what many people believe are opinions. So to use the commonly accepted definition of an opinion, "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", Let's take a look at exactly what could make an opinion wrong.
We can apply two different definitions of "wrong" to an opinion: logically incorrect and/or morally wrong. Logically incorrect opinions can be easily shown to be such, just by analyzing the argument in question. However, when many people say someone else's opinion is wrong, they usually mean the latter definition, that the opinion is morally wrong. Looking back at my argument against objective theories of ethics, we can't say with any certainty that an opinion is, in fact, wrong. Besides, opinions are nothing but judgments reached by people, and these judgments don't have to be based on knowledge or information. As such, an opinion is independent of knowledge, and can never be proven wrong.
What changes then? If we base our actions on our opinions, how is it that we can try to judge an action as right or wrong? In the scope of relativism, we normally can't even do this. We can, however, look at it in the context of cultural relativism to determine whether it is wrong for a given set of agreed-upon morals. But how can an opinion, when not based on knowledge, be truth apt? What changes when we decide to act on an opinion?
When we act on an opinion, we convert that opinion into a statement of fact. If I slap someone because I think they're a bad person, I cease merely being of the opinion that said person is bad and start believing my opinion to be absolute truth, enough so to justify a physical attack. It stops becoming an abstract, personalized view and becomes a statement of fact that everyone else has to deal with as well. When others have to deal with an individual's opinions, they are no longer opinions, and become morally relevant. As we tend to default to one of the objective theories in the process of cultural relativism, we try to define someone's reason behind an action to be either right or wrong. Thus, what was once considered to be merely an opinion now becomes right or wrong.
Yes, opinions, as defined here, can't be wrong, and everyone has the right to their opinion. Acting on said opinion is what makes that opinion either right or wrong.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Nature of Morality
As a college student, I have the opportunity to take philosophy courses. The ones I love more than anything else are ethics courses. I'm in an ethics course this semester, and for the first paper we had to write about our personal sources of morality. The idea behind it was mainly to determine our writing ability, but it gave me the unique opportunity to explore some aspects of morality. The following is the essay I wrote for this course:
Determining what actions are right and wrong is a difficult task, especially when the terms “right” and “wrong” have varied contextual definitions. Is an action right if everyone else says it is? Is an action right if it benefits everyone else in the long run, despite negative short-term consequences? Relativistic theories state that a person or society’s sense of right and wrong comes from the opinions and beliefs the person or society holds. Objective theories state that there is a single, overarching framework by which to define what is right and wrong. Relativistic theories are often dismissed due to being difficult to work with; if everyone’s sense of right and wrong is based on personal opinions, including whether other opinions are correct or not, no one can say with absolute certainty whether an action is right or wrong. Objective theories, however, have their own problems, such as how to define “good”, “happiness”, “God’s will”, how many people to consider when determining the effects of an action, along with defining various other terms and quantities upon which objective theories rely. My observations indicate that while most people tend to follow one of the objective theories of morality, the theory an individual chooses, as well as how various terms used in each theory are defined, rely on subjective relativism.
Relativistic theories of morality seem to have the following problem: there is no concrete foundation by which to judge an action right or wrong. To many, this seems to indicate that relativistic theories can’t be correct. I, on the other hand, believe this outcome to be accurate. The inherent problem with objective morality is, namely, objectivity. For entity A to be objective about entity B, entity A must not have any connection with entity B, so as to remove any possible bias A may have in its observations and conclusions about B. When discussing what actions are right and wrong for humans as a whole to take, it is impossible for a human to be objective. While there have been attempts to get close to being objective, such as science and mathematics, all these systems do is rely on common observations, leading to the use of logical fallacies such as correlation implying causation and bandwagon appeal. Additionally, the process used by Descartes to reach the cogito ergo sum conclusion shows many ways in which an individual’s observations can be deceiving or mistaken. With a person’s own existence being the only sure fact in the universe, any attempt at reaching an objective perspective is futile. Therefore, an accurate, objective model for morality is impossible.
The failure of objective morality implies the success of some form of relativistic morality. However, the success of relativistic morality implies the lack of a concrete basis for determining whether an action is right or wrong. So why discuss morality at all? The motivation behind discussing morality lies not in its theoretical accuracy, but in its practical benefits to society. If a group of people wish to form a society, that society will need a common system of rules by which to coalesce, and a discussion of morality is in order. One question we need to answer is how those rules come into being. Why do certain societies believe it’s wrong to be homosexual, while others celebrate homosexuality? Why do some societies believe medical experimentation on animals is acceptable, while others do not? The differences between these societies resides in their respective beliefs.
The next question is where do those beliefs come from? While people don’t truly know anything beyond the question of their own existence, people do have a set of instincts, which stem from the desire to continue the species. This desire requires we act in order to survive, and actions done in pursuit of this goal would not work well if we do not have a sense of what promotes our survival and what does not. In some cases, we may have an instinctual sense of what helps us survive, such as holding our breath under water, but in most cases, we gain this insight through trusted sources. As children, this starts with parents teaching us about the world around us. As we have a strong instinct to trust our parents, we tend to trust their beliefs without question. As we age, we hear from other sources about their beliefs. Eventually, we find two sets of beliefs that clash, and we have to decide how to resolve this clash for ourselves. In many instances, we go with a bandwagon approach, choosing to adopt beliefs held by a larger number of people rather than risk being a minority. As we continue to age, we begin to make our own observations about the world and begin to question whether the information we previously believed accurate truly is accurate. The observations we make and the conclusions we draw from those observations all reside in a personal knowledge base, and we use this base to form our personal sense of morality. As we observe the world around us, we create general rules of conduct that, according to our own knowledge base, leads to a greater chance of survival of the species.
However, our environment, as well as the sources available to us, cause differences between our knowledge sets. For example, I believe that caring for the poor, specifically when they are not poor solely by their own doing, is important, as I was raised way below the American poverty line due to unfortunate decisions made by my parents. Other people, who may not have been raised this way, may see the suffering of my family as poetic justice. My own observations show that a person’s motivation will often times lead to a result consistent with said motivation, and that the motivation behind an act has higher moral significance than the act itself. While the number of lives saved by the medical knowledge obtained due to the holocaust may outweigh the number of lives lost in the holocaust, the motivations behind the holocaust are what makes it wrong in my opinion, while others may be more inclined to justify the holocaust with the end results. My knowledge base, as well as the bases for all other people, were formed from what we individually determined to be trustworthy sources. Many of the sources used to construct a knowledge base have much in common, such as similar diets, needs, abilities, and some environmental factors. This similarity leads to most people having a small but seemingly common set of morals, and seems to indicate a possible objective model for morality. Our sources, however, as well as our levels of trust in them, are not identical, and this separation leads to differences in our personal knowledge bases, leading to a subjective relativistic model for morality.
The next question is how do we resolve differences between individual knowledge bases in order to form a cohesive society? Usually, the parties involved in a disagreement share the information that contributes to their viewpoint with the other parties, hoping to convince the others of the correctness of their sources. Sometimes this is successful. Other times the opposite is true, where the other parties convince the first to change their accepted knowledge base. There are also times when an agreement can’t be reached, and usually the disagreement is downplayed in its influence or another, more easily agreed-upon issue is shown to be more significant. An example of this would be if a presidential candidate were to run for office vowing to remove corporate influence in the government but also vowing to make no attempt to further gay rights. While I find the removal of corporate influence in the government and the advancement of gay rights to be important, I believe removing corporate influence in our government is of more immediate concern, and will forgive the disagreement on gay rights in order to achieve a more pressing common goal. This debate and compromise process is what leads to a smaller set of morals that a society follows, ideally turning into laws and norms. This discussion of practical morality is central to the formation and maintenance of societies and civilization, and while the conclusions reached in such a discussion may not be theoretically accurate, they are close enough to be practical.
The distinction between what is right and what is wrong is the foundation of civilization. The lack of a feasible objective model of morality explains the vast differences between cultures and their beliefs, as well as why our species as a whole has not shown much progress toward a common core of beliefs. The subjective relativism model accurately reflects how we come to moral conclusions based on our surroundings, and keeping this model in mind is essential when judging whether another person or society’s actions are right or wrong. Communication and understanding of one’s own assumptions and desires, as well as that of others, is how societies are formed and how societies coexist. Only through a relativistic mindset can we resolve problems between distinct people, societies, and cultures, and only through a relativistic mindset do we determine our sense of right and wrong.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
The Balance between Geeky and Bear
Today, I left something that no longer worked for me. Today, I left something that, while it had good qualities, it also had enough bad qualities to overcome the good. Today, I found a better alternative to what I'd grown used to.
Today, I left Geeky Bears. Today, I joined Geeky Bears Redux.
First, let me explain what Geeky Bears is. Geeky Bears is a Facebook group designed around guys who are both in the bear community and identify as some kind of geek or nerd. We talk about everything from the newest anime series, to retro video game consoles, to sci-fi series and recent MMO's. We share memes and images that only a true geek would understand, and it's mostly a fun time for all.
But Geeky Bears isn't just about geeks. It's also a place where those of us who identify as bears can feel safe about being who we are, both as gay men and as bears. We can make references to our orientation and preferences when discussing something geeky (such as which comic book characters we find attractive) without fearing being judged. And this, too, has been a fun experience.
Now let me explain the problem with gay-oriented groups.
Whenever someone creates a group such as Geeky Bears, they have a particular goal in mind for the group. Typically the goal is to create a group that focuses around the more common part of the group, while providing a safe zone for the latter part. With Geeky Bears, the goal was to provide a safe atmosphere for those who identified as bears but focus primarily on celebrating being geeks.
However, as often happens in such groups, the smaller part of the group starts to become what the group is more focused on. In gay groups specifically, we often see what I call a Selfie Swarm, where users post large amounts of selfies, mainly looking for approval from other members. With groups that aim to provide a safe space for a minority, having some of these selfies in place to create an accepting atmosphere is acceptable. However, there are times when people post selfies way too often, and usually the administration of a group isn't very eager to strike the selfies down. As such, more and more people begin posting selfies, because that's what the group is becoming. Instead of being a geeky-themed group, the group becomes a second Tumblr page. And those who joined the group for the minority aspect of the group stay with that group.
Others simply start from scratch. Which is exactly how the group Geeky Bears was formed.
Originally, there was a group called Gay Geeks that had many of the same goals of Geeky Bears, but aimed to provide an accepting environment for all gays, not just a sub-community. Eventually, however, the Gay part became more important than the Geeks part, and the group devolved into selfie after selfie. Eventually, some members of Gay Geeks decided they'd had enough of the selfie fest and decided to start their own group, dedicated to sticking to the principles with which Gay Geeks had initially been founded. Geeky Bears was born.
But over time, Geeky Bears faced the same problems as Gay Geeks. Slowly, selfies became the norm, drowning out any geek-related posts. And in a community geared toward bears, the Selfie Swarm became a bigger problem, as there are more bears that face body image problems than most of the gay community. Seeking an accepting environment, they start posting selfies. A lot of them. And the administrators of Geeky Bears allowed it.
Soon enough, some of us decided that the Selfie Swarm was not what we wanted, and we broke off to form our own group: Geeky Bears Redux. The parallels of our own formation to that of Geeky Bears is not lost on me, or on many of the other members. We know full well that we could turn into the next Gay Geeks if we're not careful. I'm a bit worried about whether we'll be able to stick to our goals better than Geeky Bears did.
For right now, though, I feel much better with where I'm at.
Today, I left Geeky Bears. Today, I joined Geeky Bears Redux.
First, let me explain what Geeky Bears is. Geeky Bears is a Facebook group designed around guys who are both in the bear community and identify as some kind of geek or nerd. We talk about everything from the newest anime series, to retro video game consoles, to sci-fi series and recent MMO's. We share memes and images that only a true geek would understand, and it's mostly a fun time for all.
But Geeky Bears isn't just about geeks. It's also a place where those of us who identify as bears can feel safe about being who we are, both as gay men and as bears. We can make references to our orientation and preferences when discussing something geeky (such as which comic book characters we find attractive) without fearing being judged. And this, too, has been a fun experience.
Now let me explain the problem with gay-oriented groups.
Whenever someone creates a group such as Geeky Bears, they have a particular goal in mind for the group. Typically the goal is to create a group that focuses around the more common part of the group, while providing a safe zone for the latter part. With Geeky Bears, the goal was to provide a safe atmosphere for those who identified as bears but focus primarily on celebrating being geeks.
However, as often happens in such groups, the smaller part of the group starts to become what the group is more focused on. In gay groups specifically, we often see what I call a Selfie Swarm, where users post large amounts of selfies, mainly looking for approval from other members. With groups that aim to provide a safe space for a minority, having some of these selfies in place to create an accepting atmosphere is acceptable. However, there are times when people post selfies way too often, and usually the administration of a group isn't very eager to strike the selfies down. As such, more and more people begin posting selfies, because that's what the group is becoming. Instead of being a geeky-themed group, the group becomes a second Tumblr page. And those who joined the group for the minority aspect of the group stay with that group.
Others simply start from scratch. Which is exactly how the group Geeky Bears was formed.
Originally, there was a group called Gay Geeks that had many of the same goals of Geeky Bears, but aimed to provide an accepting environment for all gays, not just a sub-community. Eventually, however, the Gay part became more important than the Geeks part, and the group devolved into selfie after selfie. Eventually, some members of Gay Geeks decided they'd had enough of the selfie fest and decided to start their own group, dedicated to sticking to the principles with which Gay Geeks had initially been founded. Geeky Bears was born.
But over time, Geeky Bears faced the same problems as Gay Geeks. Slowly, selfies became the norm, drowning out any geek-related posts. And in a community geared toward bears, the Selfie Swarm became a bigger problem, as there are more bears that face body image problems than most of the gay community. Seeking an accepting environment, they start posting selfies. A lot of them. And the administrators of Geeky Bears allowed it.
Soon enough, some of us decided that the Selfie Swarm was not what we wanted, and we broke off to form our own group: Geeky Bears Redux. The parallels of our own formation to that of Geeky Bears is not lost on me, or on many of the other members. We know full well that we could turn into the next Gay Geeks if we're not careful. I'm a bit worried about whether we'll be able to stick to our goals better than Geeky Bears did.
For right now, though, I feel much better with where I'm at.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Caution with Christians
Yesterday, I checked my email to find that the school I'm transferring to issued a room assignment. I found the guy I am to be rooming with in the fall on Facebook, and found that he's a Christian. For most people, this wouldn't be a big deal. It is for me. I try not to judge people before meeting them or only knowing them a little while, but this is one aspect of a person that raises red flags for me. I've been told that I'm generalizing when I have these flags come up, and maybe I am, but when my personal safety is in play, I am cautious with Christians.
The reason why is simple: I'm openly gay. And the belief that homosexuality is wrong is a common belief within Christianity. As such, I have to be cautious when interacting with a Christian before I know if he or she believes that homosexuality is a sin or that marriage between two men or two women is wrong. I have to be cautious because I don't know how the Christian is going to react. Will he try to beat the living shit out of me? Will he make a scene and scream things at the top of his lungs? Will he scold me? Will he try to convert me? Will he say nothing but retain involuntary, non-verbal cues that indicate his disgust and/or disapproval? Before I know his stance on homosexuality, I don't know. But the fact that he's Christian makes him a lot more likely to believe that homosexuality is wrong. It's certainly possible that he doesn't believe it's wrong, but again, I have to be cautious.
This caution not only stems from the fact that he has this belief system, but also from personal experience with people who have this belief system and what their behavior was. I've previously had a housemate who was Christian, and things didn't go over very well. I came out to him at the beginning of the school year, and he claimed he was okay with my sexuality. Later in the year, however, he decided to tell me that he wasn't, in fact, okay with my sexuality. And instead of taking responsibility for his belief, he chose to pin the blame for his belief on God, saying that it wasn't him that wasn't ok with my being gay, but rather it was God. The sheer lack of personal responsibility on his part is what baffled me the most, and he is far from the first Christian to try to blame their beliefs on God. Not only that, he tried to use the line "Love the sinner, hate the sin", which says far more about a person than what he was trying to say (see my previous post for more info). This lack of personal responsibility and belief in one's self to be incontrovertibly right, and its wide spread prevalence in the Christian community, makes me more inclined to be cautious.
As I said earlier, I've been accused of generalizing when I am cautious. The implication with this statement is that I'm being unfair to the Christian in question, not giving him or her a chance to demonstrate their opinion on homosexuality. My experience, however, demonstrates that asking the Christian doesn't mean anything. One second a person will say they're fine with who you are, the next they'll say the opposite. Asking someone whether they are fine with your sexuality doesn't mean they'll accept you: often, when talking about Christians, this means you'll be barely tolerated. You won't be able to discuss anything that involves your partner, no matter how benign, without the Christian reacting in a way that signals his or her disgust. You won't be able to share many parts of your life with the Christian for that reason. You'll have to censor yourself, and this is not what I want, especially out of someone whom I'm supposed to trust with living under the same roof as myself.
Another implication of the "you shouldn't generalize that person" mantra is the idea that what that person is being judged about is not within their power to change. If we were discussing someone who was being judged due to their race or gender or sexual orientation, I would agree that generalizing shouldn't occur, as these things aren't under the judgee's control. Religious beliefs, however, are. Believing in Christianity is a choice, as is believing in any other belief system. Even assuming, as I've heard some Christians say before, that they heard God speak to them, the Christians chose to listen to that voice. They could have easily ignored the voice, but chose not to. Instead, these people chose to believe in a system where people like me are demonized for being who we are. And the idea that this demonization is either good or so insignificant as to be irrelevant is something they can, and should, be judged by.
Additionally, I've heard the argument that not all Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong because not all churches talk about homosexuality. This means absolutely nothing. Regardless of what a preacher says, a preacher's followers will come to their own conclusions regarding everything the bible says. Just because a preacher never mentions homosexuality doesn't mean he or she doesn't believe it to be a sin. The same goes for his or her followers. Absence of evidence proving the demonization of homosexuality in a church is not evidence of absence.
I have experience living with barely tolerant Christians. I know the dangers that come with being gay and living with Christians. I've seen that Christianity is a choice made by the believer, and that said choice doesn't protect a believer from ridicule. And I've seen that the church a Christian chooses to go to doesn't indicate what their beliefs are. Do I try to be accepting of Christians? Of course. Do I make sure the Christian doesn't believe I'm sinful before trying to be friends with them? Yes. But does being cautious, when I have so much evidence and reason behind said caution, make me a bad person? No, it really doesn't.
The reason why is simple: I'm openly gay. And the belief that homosexuality is wrong is a common belief within Christianity. As such, I have to be cautious when interacting with a Christian before I know if he or she believes that homosexuality is a sin or that marriage between two men or two women is wrong. I have to be cautious because I don't know how the Christian is going to react. Will he try to beat the living shit out of me? Will he make a scene and scream things at the top of his lungs? Will he scold me? Will he try to convert me? Will he say nothing but retain involuntary, non-verbal cues that indicate his disgust and/or disapproval? Before I know his stance on homosexuality, I don't know. But the fact that he's Christian makes him a lot more likely to believe that homosexuality is wrong. It's certainly possible that he doesn't believe it's wrong, but again, I have to be cautious.
This caution not only stems from the fact that he has this belief system, but also from personal experience with people who have this belief system and what their behavior was. I've previously had a housemate who was Christian, and things didn't go over very well. I came out to him at the beginning of the school year, and he claimed he was okay with my sexuality. Later in the year, however, he decided to tell me that he wasn't, in fact, okay with my sexuality. And instead of taking responsibility for his belief, he chose to pin the blame for his belief on God, saying that it wasn't him that wasn't ok with my being gay, but rather it was God. The sheer lack of personal responsibility on his part is what baffled me the most, and he is far from the first Christian to try to blame their beliefs on God. Not only that, he tried to use the line "Love the sinner, hate the sin", which says far more about a person than what he was trying to say (see my previous post for more info). This lack of personal responsibility and belief in one's self to be incontrovertibly right, and its wide spread prevalence in the Christian community, makes me more inclined to be cautious.
As I said earlier, I've been accused of generalizing when I am cautious. The implication with this statement is that I'm being unfair to the Christian in question, not giving him or her a chance to demonstrate their opinion on homosexuality. My experience, however, demonstrates that asking the Christian doesn't mean anything. One second a person will say they're fine with who you are, the next they'll say the opposite. Asking someone whether they are fine with your sexuality doesn't mean they'll accept you: often, when talking about Christians, this means you'll be barely tolerated. You won't be able to discuss anything that involves your partner, no matter how benign, without the Christian reacting in a way that signals his or her disgust. You won't be able to share many parts of your life with the Christian for that reason. You'll have to censor yourself, and this is not what I want, especially out of someone whom I'm supposed to trust with living under the same roof as myself.
Another implication of the "you shouldn't generalize that person" mantra is the idea that what that person is being judged about is not within their power to change. If we were discussing someone who was being judged due to their race or gender or sexual orientation, I would agree that generalizing shouldn't occur, as these things aren't under the judgee's control. Religious beliefs, however, are. Believing in Christianity is a choice, as is believing in any other belief system. Even assuming, as I've heard some Christians say before, that they heard God speak to them, the Christians chose to listen to that voice. They could have easily ignored the voice, but chose not to. Instead, these people chose to believe in a system where people like me are demonized for being who we are. And the idea that this demonization is either good or so insignificant as to be irrelevant is something they can, and should, be judged by.
Additionally, I've heard the argument that not all Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong because not all churches talk about homosexuality. This means absolutely nothing. Regardless of what a preacher says, a preacher's followers will come to their own conclusions regarding everything the bible says. Just because a preacher never mentions homosexuality doesn't mean he or she doesn't believe it to be a sin. The same goes for his or her followers. Absence of evidence proving the demonization of homosexuality in a church is not evidence of absence.
I have experience living with barely tolerant Christians. I know the dangers that come with being gay and living with Christians. I've seen that Christianity is a choice made by the believer, and that said choice doesn't protect a believer from ridicule. And I've seen that the church a Christian chooses to go to doesn't indicate what their beliefs are. Do I try to be accepting of Christians? Of course. Do I make sure the Christian doesn't believe I'm sinful before trying to be friends with them? Yes. But does being cautious, when I have so much evidence and reason behind said caution, make me a bad person? No, it really doesn't.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Myth of the Gender Wage Gap
I often find myself listening to discussions regarding gender equality while participating in discussions and activities related to LGBT equality as these subjects have a considerable overlap. Two subjects I hear about most often are women's right to abortion and the gender wage gap. As I have my own two cents on both subjects, I'll write posts for both. This first is in regard to the gender wage gap. Put simply, it's a myth.
Let's look at the idea itself: what is the gender wage gap? The gender wage gap is a supposed discrepancy in the amount of money women and men get paid for work. Several sources have been used to promote the idea of a gender wage gap, and most of these sources claim the gap is due to gender discrimination in the work place. Other sources claim that this gap is not due to discrimination, and instead involves many other factors that are often ignored in the first assumption. I am of the latter persuasion.
Why is the gender wage gap a myth? Using the simple description I gave above, the gap seems to be real. When you take the average income over a lifetime for a man and a woman and compare them, you will find that the average accumulated income for a man is higher. This happens for many reasons, however, but not due to gender discrimination. The factors that many people choose to ignore when looking at average income between women and men is the tendency for women to take lower-risk (and therefore lower-paying) jobs than men, who often take higher-paying and higher-risk jobs. Women are also more likely than men to take time off of work for child rearing than men. There are also more men in very high places in large corporations due to having had decades of work opportunities to propel them to that point: opportunities that women have not had for as long. Additionally, the tendency for more women to go out and get jobs has grown in the past four decades, but there are still a good number of women who are working now who didn't when they had families at home. Even waiting until their children were in school, such mothers would have had less time to work over the course of their lifetime, leading to additional changes in their lifetime earnings. Additionally, female business owners are more likely to work hours that allow them to raise their kids than men are, leading to a further impact on wages. These factors will influence the lifetime earnings of the average woman far more than whatever discrimination exists today. When looking at these factors and others, the American Association of University Women found only a 6.6 cent difference between what men and women are paid, in favor of men. However, their research grouped certain professions together that have huge differences in what they pay (lawyer and librarian, for example). When looking at people in better-organized categories, this 6.6 cent difference drops significantly. When considering that the wage difference is so low, it becomes statistically insignificant. Therefore, the gender wage gap is a myth.
Many have argued, though, that while the gap is not caused by discrimination from bosses, it is caused by discrimination in our society. This is partially true. Women are encouraged by our society to take up jobs such as teaching and nursing, while men are more encouraged to things like engineering and construction. Women are encouraged more to raise their kids than men are, and men are heavily ridiculed if they want to be a stay-at-home-dad by their peers. There is pressure under both women and men to take up jobs that are 'appropriate' for our genders, and all of us have to face hurdles created by those pressures. As such, these societal pressures need to be lifted to allow everyone to pursue the job they wish.
While the societal pressure exists, the pressure is more to fit in with what our society wants, and those wants stem from basic instinctual desires that we have no control over. Women are, in general, more driven to taking care of children than men, while men are the greater risk takers. This stems from how our species reproduces and raises our young, and will not change so long as we reproduce in the way that we do. It's these tendencies that as often, if not more so, drive women to take jobs like teachers and nurses and drive men to take jobs like cops and fire fighters than any societal pressure. Even if we lived in a utopian world where we were encouraged to do whatever we wanted, we would still gravitate toward careers based on our instincts, and this difference in lifetime wages would remain.
Looking at a man and a woman who have the same job, in the same company, with the same level of skill and education, and with the same hours, the man and woman will earn the same amount. The gender wage gap is nothing more than a myth, and is an obstacle to subjects of real concern to gender equality, such as what I'll talk about next time.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Reflectons on Rolla - Peers
I was going to write this is two separate posts: one about my peers, the other about the computer science department at this school. But seeing as many things about them go hand-in-hand, it makes more sense to me to write them as a single post.
Throughout most of my time here in Rolla, I've noticed I'm a bit different from the people around me. It wasn't until only recently that I realized what those differences were. The biggest revelation of my distinction came about in an Ethics course I took last year. This course, by nature, was a bit abstract and not very structured. I absolutely loved the course as philosophy is something I like and I loved learning about various different ways to look at an ethical dilemma. But one day, the kid in the seat next to me was talking with me about something. At some point, I brought up that I liked the course I was in and my professor's teaching style. This kid, however, did not. We were mainly discussing the less structured nature of this professor's teaching style, and I realized at that point that the only thing this kid was focusing on in this course was what he needed to know to pass the exam. I've also noticed that he wasn't the only one, as many people in not only that course but others here seem to only care about what they need to know to pass a course.
These people I call "Test Takers". They're the kinds of people that thrive on standardized tests but have little to no critical thinking skills. They can't adapt to situations that are more fluid than the rigidly structured environment they were raised in. This aspect of these students became quite apparent in my Statistics class this semester when half the class thought an assignment was due Friday when, in fact, it was due Wednesday. This assumption regarding the due date of the homework came from the idea that classes were supposed to have one day on which to turn in homework, and that day should never waver. However, on the homework assignment itself was the due date, and it was these students who decided not to look at the homework, not to take responsibility for their grades, who believed it was due Friday. It's these students that performed incredibly well in high school because they did exactly what our high schools are designed to do: get kids used to being rigid and disposable.
Additionally, I've noticed through several people that many students at this school have absolutely no idea how to live on their own. I've had housemates who didn't know that electric stoves have a vent coming out through one of the back burners. I've had others who didn't know that dryers had lint filters. And I've had others still who had no idea how to load a dish washer. Even worse were those who threw a tantrum any time some household chore wasn't done according to their schedule, despite the fact that they made no effort to perform this chore themselves. It's these kids that were raised in homes where they never had to do anything themselves. They always had a parent (or possibly maid) who did the various household chores for them and they never learned how to do these themselves. These are the kinds of kids that feel like they deserve to have their hands held every step of the way as that's exactly how they were raised. And it's this kind of student who often goes to private schools, where they are taught that they are better than everyone around them for simply having money, which often times leads to the belief that they are above such menial tasks. And it's also this kind of kid that tends to come to Rolla.
The problem with most of the students here being from private schools is the computer science department teaches their courses as if they're an extension of a private school. Somehow, between the beginning computer science courses and where I'm at now, my peers seemed to learn a lot more about computer science that I had. Maybe they were more driven and therefore studied outside the curriculum. I suspect, though, that they already had this information from the schools they attended, and the computer science department's curriculum was based on having that previous knowledge. Unfortunately for me, who was lucky enough to take the very last programming course our high school offered, this meant I was lost when it came to several aspects of the coursework. For example, I don't know much about how to use a Unix system from the terminal, but many classes assume we already know how to do pretty much everything. It's based on an assumption (possibly accurate) that most students taking computer science courses were taught how to use Unix in high school. Unfortunately, this means I often times get left behind in a class as I'm supposed to know information that I don't know. Also, most professors, when introducing a topic, focus not on the amazing things one can do with the new subject matter, but rather on the large piles of money one can make from knowing this material. The university, in general, is more focused on money rather than education. Considering the environments these kids came up in, this doesn't surprise me, as money has always been seen as important to them. As such, they're more driven to learn things they can brag about on their resumes and more focused on GPA's rather than their intelligence.
And that was where I learned how I was different: I was raised poor. Unlike so many of the people at this school, I was raised way below the American poverty line and was never addicted to the materialism that seems to be plaguing our society. I learned how to survive on a low amount of money, where these kids feel like they have to have large amounts of money in order to survive. Don't get me wrong, I do like money, but would have no idea what do to with it if I were to have a ton. Also, being from a single parent home that was this poor, along with having a disabled sister, gave me a greater sense of independence. There was never time to wait for my mom to do my laundry or cook as she was usually busy with something else. As such, we learned how to do these things at a much younger age. We learned how to be independent way before any of these kids learned how. Many were dumped in the deep end when they came to college and have no idea how to survive on their own. But thanks to my unique upbringing, I was prepared to handle most of the challenges that living on my own brought.
But my unique mindset also had some problems when combined with this school. I was raised on Star Trek, and learned either from that or from my mother that my intelligence was important and something that should be honed. I learned that education for education's sake was a good thing, that expanding one's knowledge also expanded one's horizons and improved our decision making processes. I learned that there are far more important things to life than just money. But I could never thrive at a school based on the exact opposite of those principles. I can't thrive at a school who is more focused on getting researchers instead of professors. I can't thrive in an environment where thinking is discouraged and blindly taking orders is the way of life. I can't thrive with people who think money is the only thing in the world that matters. And this clash between the culture found at this school and the one I was raised in is why I've decided to transfer to a different school. I'm not sure if UMKC will be any different or not, but at least the computer science department is smaller and hopefully more focused on education instead of money.
Throughout most of my time here in Rolla, I've noticed I'm a bit different from the people around me. It wasn't until only recently that I realized what those differences were. The biggest revelation of my distinction came about in an Ethics course I took last year. This course, by nature, was a bit abstract and not very structured. I absolutely loved the course as philosophy is something I like and I loved learning about various different ways to look at an ethical dilemma. But one day, the kid in the seat next to me was talking with me about something. At some point, I brought up that I liked the course I was in and my professor's teaching style. This kid, however, did not. We were mainly discussing the less structured nature of this professor's teaching style, and I realized at that point that the only thing this kid was focusing on in this course was what he needed to know to pass the exam. I've also noticed that he wasn't the only one, as many people in not only that course but others here seem to only care about what they need to know to pass a course.
These people I call "Test Takers". They're the kinds of people that thrive on standardized tests but have little to no critical thinking skills. They can't adapt to situations that are more fluid than the rigidly structured environment they were raised in. This aspect of these students became quite apparent in my Statistics class this semester when half the class thought an assignment was due Friday when, in fact, it was due Wednesday. This assumption regarding the due date of the homework came from the idea that classes were supposed to have one day on which to turn in homework, and that day should never waver. However, on the homework assignment itself was the due date, and it was these students who decided not to look at the homework, not to take responsibility for their grades, who believed it was due Friday. It's these students that performed incredibly well in high school because they did exactly what our high schools are designed to do: get kids used to being rigid and disposable.
Additionally, I've noticed through several people that many students at this school have absolutely no idea how to live on their own. I've had housemates who didn't know that electric stoves have a vent coming out through one of the back burners. I've had others who didn't know that dryers had lint filters. And I've had others still who had no idea how to load a dish washer. Even worse were those who threw a tantrum any time some household chore wasn't done according to their schedule, despite the fact that they made no effort to perform this chore themselves. It's these kids that were raised in homes where they never had to do anything themselves. They always had a parent (or possibly maid) who did the various household chores for them and they never learned how to do these themselves. These are the kinds of kids that feel like they deserve to have their hands held every step of the way as that's exactly how they were raised. And it's this kind of student who often goes to private schools, where they are taught that they are better than everyone around them for simply having money, which often times leads to the belief that they are above such menial tasks. And it's also this kind of kid that tends to come to Rolla.
The problem with most of the students here being from private schools is the computer science department teaches their courses as if they're an extension of a private school. Somehow, between the beginning computer science courses and where I'm at now, my peers seemed to learn a lot more about computer science that I had. Maybe they were more driven and therefore studied outside the curriculum. I suspect, though, that they already had this information from the schools they attended, and the computer science department's curriculum was based on having that previous knowledge. Unfortunately for me, who was lucky enough to take the very last programming course our high school offered, this meant I was lost when it came to several aspects of the coursework. For example, I don't know much about how to use a Unix system from the terminal, but many classes assume we already know how to do pretty much everything. It's based on an assumption (possibly accurate) that most students taking computer science courses were taught how to use Unix in high school. Unfortunately, this means I often times get left behind in a class as I'm supposed to know information that I don't know. Also, most professors, when introducing a topic, focus not on the amazing things one can do with the new subject matter, but rather on the large piles of money one can make from knowing this material. The university, in general, is more focused on money rather than education. Considering the environments these kids came up in, this doesn't surprise me, as money has always been seen as important to them. As such, they're more driven to learn things they can brag about on their resumes and more focused on GPA's rather than their intelligence.
And that was where I learned how I was different: I was raised poor. Unlike so many of the people at this school, I was raised way below the American poverty line and was never addicted to the materialism that seems to be plaguing our society. I learned how to survive on a low amount of money, where these kids feel like they have to have large amounts of money in order to survive. Don't get me wrong, I do like money, but would have no idea what do to with it if I were to have a ton. Also, being from a single parent home that was this poor, along with having a disabled sister, gave me a greater sense of independence. There was never time to wait for my mom to do my laundry or cook as she was usually busy with something else. As such, we learned how to do these things at a much younger age. We learned how to be independent way before any of these kids learned how. Many were dumped in the deep end when they came to college and have no idea how to survive on their own. But thanks to my unique upbringing, I was prepared to handle most of the challenges that living on my own brought.
But my unique mindset also had some problems when combined with this school. I was raised on Star Trek, and learned either from that or from my mother that my intelligence was important and something that should be honed. I learned that education for education's sake was a good thing, that expanding one's knowledge also expanded one's horizons and improved our decision making processes. I learned that there are far more important things to life than just money. But I could never thrive at a school based on the exact opposite of those principles. I can't thrive at a school who is more focused on getting researchers instead of professors. I can't thrive in an environment where thinking is discouraged and blindly taking orders is the way of life. I can't thrive with people who think money is the only thing in the world that matters. And this clash between the culture found at this school and the one I was raised in is why I've decided to transfer to a different school. I'm not sure if UMKC will be any different or not, but at least the computer science department is smaller and hopefully more focused on education instead of money.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Reflections on Rolla: The LGBT Community
Since I'm nearing the end of my time at MS&T, I've decided to write at least three pieces on my experiences here in Rolla. The first, if you couldn't guess from the title, is about my experiences with the LGBT communities here. Now, there'll be some people I'll mention whose names I won't, but if you happen to know who they are, please don't name them.
My first experiences with the LGBT community began freshman year of college. I had just publicly come out three months earlier, and I wasn't certain how to go about finding a community to interact with. Also, when I tried to find the local GSA online, all I found was the local chapter of DLP. I eventually found the local GSA, called The DaVinci Society, about my third week in. My first experience was interesting, as DaVinci has an introduction thing at the beginning of meetings where we say what our name is, our major and optionally our year, and we answer some ice breaker question. I forgot what the question was that night, but everyone seemed to do everything they could to make their answers as stereotypically gay as possible. We talked about business a while, talking about upcoming events that DaVinci was planning on participating in. We also, occasionally brought up news items and discussed those. Then, the meeting usually ended, and I would go back to my dorm. This happened the same way for the next threeish weeks, before one night I decided to participate in an informal get-together that many members of DaVinci went to at the local Applebees. While it was unofficial, these get-togethers would become the most important and influential part of DaVinci for me. The first night was ok, until this one girl decided to pipe up and say something along the lines of "I don't wanna be the fat kid at the table whose the only one ordering desert." And this was right after I'd ordered desert myself. This was the first inkling I had of the kind of community that existed here at Rolla. The same happened for that entire year (without the anti-fat comments), and I began to notice that certain members of DaVinci seemed to be more influential than others, and some were more supportive of activism than others. It was the later group that I found I enjoyed more, and it was that latter group that I was sad to see go.
My sophomore year was a little different. Many of the people who were so good with the activism projects we had going left, either transferring or graduating. That left behind only a few people who focused on activism, while it left many more people who cared more about being social as the more influential members of DaVinci. We quickly saw the decline of the organization, with many people leaving and not returning to the group. It was also that year that I decided to try rushing for the local chapter of Delta Lambda Phi. It was the suggestion of a friend of mine who was also rushing, and as had happened in high school when a friend suggested I try speech and debate, it didn't turn out well. I began noticing things about the people in DLP, specifically that none of them cared if I was around. Some even seemed to be more annoyed at my presence than indifferent. Additionally, none of them (other than my big) made much of an attempt to make me feel welcome in the group: instead, I was just there, and they couldn't care less. I eventually realized DLP was not for me, and I depledged two weeks before initiation. Unfortunately, I would soon realize that this exclusion tendency extended far beyond just me.
Junior year I moved into a house, along with three gay guys and a straight guy. Two of the gay guys were in DLP, and were rather influential members of DLP. Also, the house I moved into was called "Haus Ghey", because it had been the home of many members of both DLP and DaVinci over the past several years. As such, most DLP events were hosted at this house, and I had seen it a few times when I was a pledge. Soon, though, I began noticing things about DaVinci that I hadn't seen before, mainly because I wasn't aware of it. There were many inside jokes going around DaVinci between certain people, but it wasn't until this moment that I realized it was only between DLP people, and consisted of references to events that only a member of DLP would know about. I also noticed there was absolutely no attempt to interact with anyone outside of their small circle. It destroyed any possibility of maintaining a gay community, and eventually meetings went down to nothing but the board members, members of DLP, and myself. I eventually realized there were three main people causing the problems that led to this destruction of the local LGBT community. The first was a guy who was very judgemental of everyone around him, and tended toward isolation. The second was a guy who seemed genuinely interested in activism, but he was overly obsessed with DLP, to the point where he even had the letters DLP after his name on his Scruff account. The third was a very flamboyant man who often made jokes about his "inner black woman" but also had an alarming tendency to bitch about everyone behind their backs. Also, all three of these men were very influential within DLP. Their influence and these personality aspects combined to turn DLP into a very pretentious and isolated organization that almost destroyed DaVinci. I also wasn't the only one to notice this collapse, as the president of DaVinci shared my concerns, but it seemed we were the only ones who had them. After she spoke out once at a meeting about it and after I overheard the bitching in DLP about it, I spoke out myself on Facebook, going into more detail about the problems I had noticed. Suffice it to say, anyone who might have acted like a friend stopped. Either way, the local community was almost destroyed. It was this collapse of the community that led me to try to create a local bear community, but that didn't work out very well. Nearly no one wanted to meet and not many people were part of the community, so it kind of collapsed.
Senior year was a breath of fresh air, as many new freshman joined the group and one of the trifecta went away on a co-op. It seemed there was the possibility of turning the organization around and reviving the local community. But slowly, I noticed there was still the isolationist activity on the part of DLP, and I noticed they were trying to rope in every male in the organization. We didn't do nearly as much activism events as we had done freshman year, as the spirit of helping the local community pretty much died after that, but there seemed to be a real community forming. We had a good set of presidents for the organization, and we had some good ideas and good programs going. Then, the second semester hit. The president of DaVinci at the time decided to pledge for DLP, and while the other two members of the trifecta graduated, the third came back. And after a while, I noticed the judgemental and isolationist one came back too. It was at this point that I decided to leave DaVinci for good, knowing that it would probably revert back to what DLP had turned it into and would never do any good again.
I know it seems that I'm mainly bitching, but this is what I experienced here at Rolla from the LGBT community. I'm hoping that I can find a better one at UMKC. I've heard their bear scene is amazing, and there are probably many more communities in Kansas City since it's larger. I just hope I'm not getting my hopes up for nothing.
My first experiences with the LGBT community began freshman year of college. I had just publicly come out three months earlier, and I wasn't certain how to go about finding a community to interact with. Also, when I tried to find the local GSA online, all I found was the local chapter of DLP. I eventually found the local GSA, called The DaVinci Society, about my third week in. My first experience was interesting, as DaVinci has an introduction thing at the beginning of meetings where we say what our name is, our major and optionally our year, and we answer some ice breaker question. I forgot what the question was that night, but everyone seemed to do everything they could to make their answers as stereotypically gay as possible. We talked about business a while, talking about upcoming events that DaVinci was planning on participating in. We also, occasionally brought up news items and discussed those. Then, the meeting usually ended, and I would go back to my dorm. This happened the same way for the next threeish weeks, before one night I decided to participate in an informal get-together that many members of DaVinci went to at the local Applebees. While it was unofficial, these get-togethers would become the most important and influential part of DaVinci for me. The first night was ok, until this one girl decided to pipe up and say something along the lines of "I don't wanna be the fat kid at the table whose the only one ordering desert." And this was right after I'd ordered desert myself. This was the first inkling I had of the kind of community that existed here at Rolla. The same happened for that entire year (without the anti-fat comments), and I began to notice that certain members of DaVinci seemed to be more influential than others, and some were more supportive of activism than others. It was the later group that I found I enjoyed more, and it was that latter group that I was sad to see go.
My sophomore year was a little different. Many of the people who were so good with the activism projects we had going left, either transferring or graduating. That left behind only a few people who focused on activism, while it left many more people who cared more about being social as the more influential members of DaVinci. We quickly saw the decline of the organization, with many people leaving and not returning to the group. It was also that year that I decided to try rushing for the local chapter of Delta Lambda Phi. It was the suggestion of a friend of mine who was also rushing, and as had happened in high school when a friend suggested I try speech and debate, it didn't turn out well. I began noticing things about the people in DLP, specifically that none of them cared if I was around. Some even seemed to be more annoyed at my presence than indifferent. Additionally, none of them (other than my big) made much of an attempt to make me feel welcome in the group: instead, I was just there, and they couldn't care less. I eventually realized DLP was not for me, and I depledged two weeks before initiation. Unfortunately, I would soon realize that this exclusion tendency extended far beyond just me.
Junior year I moved into a house, along with three gay guys and a straight guy. Two of the gay guys were in DLP, and were rather influential members of DLP. Also, the house I moved into was called "Haus Ghey", because it had been the home of many members of both DLP and DaVinci over the past several years. As such, most DLP events were hosted at this house, and I had seen it a few times when I was a pledge. Soon, though, I began noticing things about DaVinci that I hadn't seen before, mainly because I wasn't aware of it. There were many inside jokes going around DaVinci between certain people, but it wasn't until this moment that I realized it was only between DLP people, and consisted of references to events that only a member of DLP would know about. I also noticed there was absolutely no attempt to interact with anyone outside of their small circle. It destroyed any possibility of maintaining a gay community, and eventually meetings went down to nothing but the board members, members of DLP, and myself. I eventually realized there were three main people causing the problems that led to this destruction of the local LGBT community. The first was a guy who was very judgemental of everyone around him, and tended toward isolation. The second was a guy who seemed genuinely interested in activism, but he was overly obsessed with DLP, to the point where he even had the letters DLP after his name on his Scruff account. The third was a very flamboyant man who often made jokes about his "inner black woman" but also had an alarming tendency to bitch about everyone behind their backs. Also, all three of these men were very influential within DLP. Their influence and these personality aspects combined to turn DLP into a very pretentious and isolated organization that almost destroyed DaVinci. I also wasn't the only one to notice this collapse, as the president of DaVinci shared my concerns, but it seemed we were the only ones who had them. After she spoke out once at a meeting about it and after I overheard the bitching in DLP about it, I spoke out myself on Facebook, going into more detail about the problems I had noticed. Suffice it to say, anyone who might have acted like a friend stopped. Either way, the local community was almost destroyed. It was this collapse of the community that led me to try to create a local bear community, but that didn't work out very well. Nearly no one wanted to meet and not many people were part of the community, so it kind of collapsed.
Senior year was a breath of fresh air, as many new freshman joined the group and one of the trifecta went away on a co-op. It seemed there was the possibility of turning the organization around and reviving the local community. But slowly, I noticed there was still the isolationist activity on the part of DLP, and I noticed they were trying to rope in every male in the organization. We didn't do nearly as much activism events as we had done freshman year, as the spirit of helping the local community pretty much died after that, but there seemed to be a real community forming. We had a good set of presidents for the organization, and we had some good ideas and good programs going. Then, the second semester hit. The president of DaVinci at the time decided to pledge for DLP, and while the other two members of the trifecta graduated, the third came back. And after a while, I noticed the judgemental and isolationist one came back too. It was at this point that I decided to leave DaVinci for good, knowing that it would probably revert back to what DLP had turned it into and would never do any good again.
I know it seems that I'm mainly bitching, but this is what I experienced here at Rolla from the LGBT community. I'm hoping that I can find a better one at UMKC. I've heard their bear scene is amazing, and there are probably many more communities in Kansas City since it's larger. I just hope I'm not getting my hopes up for nothing.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
The Point of Unplugging
So as usually happens, I came across an article on LinkedIn that made me want to write a response post. This is the link in question:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/the-pointlessness-of-unplugging.html
If you don't wanna read it, the article basically says that the National Day of Unplugging is pointless as it hasn't always produced a long-term change in those who participate. It also goes on to characterize the movement as 'pruddish'. While I've never personally participated in this event, as this article was the first time I'd heard of it, I have to say that I disagree with the author's point of view about this event.
First, I'd like to explain what I think National Day of Unplugging (abbreviated as NDU) is. Based on its website, it seems that NDU is a communal event where people decide to turn off all of their electronics, such as computers, cell phones, tv's, etc. Based on the images on the event's site, it seems that there are a variety of reasons to participate in this event, from wanting a break from the frantic nature of keeping up with social networking sites to wanting to spend more time with family. For whatever reason, these people have decided to put down their electronics for one whole day.
In the article, the author makes a false assumption: the idea that the only reason to participate in this day is to try to enact some kind of long-term cultural change. While this is certainly a possible reason for participating, it is quite rare for those who participate to do so for this reason. As stated above and on the website, there are multiple different reasons for wanting a break from technology. The author assumes that the only reason a person would want to participate in NDU is that the participant feels morally superior and is self-riteous. Priggish was the exact word the author used. And by making the event seem like some kind of self-riteous attempt to change the entire American culture, the author has done a disservice both to those who have participated and got something out of it and those who started the movement.
The author also states that NDU does not matter because it does not accomplish the long-term goals that the author believes it is designed to do. Of course, this can be disputed using the points I used above. But let's take a closer look at the long-term goal aspect of the author's argument. The idea is if an effort doesn't yield long-term results, it's not worth the effort. This idea has been rejected by most of society any time they have casual sex. With any luck, casual sex does not have any long-term consequences and is engaged in solely for the purpose of short-term enjoyment. There are numerous other examples of activities that people engage in that are not done so for the sake of long-term results, but I won't go into any more. The point is long-term results are not a necessary component for an action to have value, and the fact that the people participating in NDU do not effect a long-term change to themselves or society does not mean that NDU is pointless.
As someone who has taken a partial break from certain technologies, let me share my side of the story. Before this article, I'd never heard of NDU. It happened back in early March, so I've already missed the date for it. Whether I could faithfully participate or not is something I still can't decide. But I do know it sounds enticing. I often find myself behind my computer all day. It doesn't help that I'm studying computer science, but during my recreational hours most of my time is still spent behind a computer. As such I'm usually sitting and typing for long periods of time, which has lead to some health problems in the past. Hell, I used to have breaks scheduled during my day where I would go outside for about fifteen minutes just to take a break from everything I was doing. The idea of taking a day-long break sounds a little daunting, but also sounds therapeutic.
The one area of technology that I got away from permanently was Facebook. I had noticed that Facebook had combined with my social anxiety to create a difficult to break addiction. I noticed one time that I posted something on Facebook, then waited like a junkie looking for a fix for someone to reply to my post and tell me what they thought of it. For those who don't know, fear of how people will respond to your presence in social situations, whether online or in person, is the largest part if not the definition of social anxiety. This kind of addiction came from those times when someone approved of what I said, finding it funny or finding them in agreement with it. The relief of that anxiety, of that pressure, felt good, and so I would continue to post things just to see how people reacted. The problem, however, became that while I was waiting for someone to reply, I was tense. Extremely tense. And there would be times when my post went ignored, with no one even liking it, and this lack of response would only increase my anxiety even more. It was only once I realized that I was supporting my anxiety with Facebook did I decide to delete my account for good. Since then, I've felt less anxiety about missing Facebook posts and have become much more productive. Have I missed some of the social interactions that it brought? Sure. But I think I've gained more than I lost from the experience.
And unlike the opinion of the author, my reason for withdrawing from this bit of technology was personal. I know that there are other people who function perfectly well with Facebook and that deleting their account would not be a good solution for them. For me, however, it was something I needed to do for my own health, and I don't try to push people to delete their accounts. It was not priggish. It was healthy. And most people who decide to withdraw from technology do so for reasons that don't involve trying to show the world the 'right' way to act. Most people do it for their own health and happiness.
So my response to the author of the article is this: you're wrong. There is a point to NDU, even if there is no point to you, and I'm sorry you couldn't see that.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/the-pointlessness-of-unplugging.html
If you don't wanna read it, the article basically says that the National Day of Unplugging is pointless as it hasn't always produced a long-term change in those who participate. It also goes on to characterize the movement as 'pruddish'. While I've never personally participated in this event, as this article was the first time I'd heard of it, I have to say that I disagree with the author's point of view about this event.
First, I'd like to explain what I think National Day of Unplugging (abbreviated as NDU) is. Based on its website, it seems that NDU is a communal event where people decide to turn off all of their electronics, such as computers, cell phones, tv's, etc. Based on the images on the event's site, it seems that there are a variety of reasons to participate in this event, from wanting a break from the frantic nature of keeping up with social networking sites to wanting to spend more time with family. For whatever reason, these people have decided to put down their electronics for one whole day.
In the article, the author makes a false assumption: the idea that the only reason to participate in this day is to try to enact some kind of long-term cultural change. While this is certainly a possible reason for participating, it is quite rare for those who participate to do so for this reason. As stated above and on the website, there are multiple different reasons for wanting a break from technology. The author assumes that the only reason a person would want to participate in NDU is that the participant feels morally superior and is self-riteous. Priggish was the exact word the author used. And by making the event seem like some kind of self-riteous attempt to change the entire American culture, the author has done a disservice both to those who have participated and got something out of it and those who started the movement.
The author also states that NDU does not matter because it does not accomplish the long-term goals that the author believes it is designed to do. Of course, this can be disputed using the points I used above. But let's take a closer look at the long-term goal aspect of the author's argument. The idea is if an effort doesn't yield long-term results, it's not worth the effort. This idea has been rejected by most of society any time they have casual sex. With any luck, casual sex does not have any long-term consequences and is engaged in solely for the purpose of short-term enjoyment. There are numerous other examples of activities that people engage in that are not done so for the sake of long-term results, but I won't go into any more. The point is long-term results are not a necessary component for an action to have value, and the fact that the people participating in NDU do not effect a long-term change to themselves or society does not mean that NDU is pointless.
As someone who has taken a partial break from certain technologies, let me share my side of the story. Before this article, I'd never heard of NDU. It happened back in early March, so I've already missed the date for it. Whether I could faithfully participate or not is something I still can't decide. But I do know it sounds enticing. I often find myself behind my computer all day. It doesn't help that I'm studying computer science, but during my recreational hours most of my time is still spent behind a computer. As such I'm usually sitting and typing for long periods of time, which has lead to some health problems in the past. Hell, I used to have breaks scheduled during my day where I would go outside for about fifteen minutes just to take a break from everything I was doing. The idea of taking a day-long break sounds a little daunting, but also sounds therapeutic.
The one area of technology that I got away from permanently was Facebook. I had noticed that Facebook had combined with my social anxiety to create a difficult to break addiction. I noticed one time that I posted something on Facebook, then waited like a junkie looking for a fix for someone to reply to my post and tell me what they thought of it. For those who don't know, fear of how people will respond to your presence in social situations, whether online or in person, is the largest part if not the definition of social anxiety. This kind of addiction came from those times when someone approved of what I said, finding it funny or finding them in agreement with it. The relief of that anxiety, of that pressure, felt good, and so I would continue to post things just to see how people reacted. The problem, however, became that while I was waiting for someone to reply, I was tense. Extremely tense. And there would be times when my post went ignored, with no one even liking it, and this lack of response would only increase my anxiety even more. It was only once I realized that I was supporting my anxiety with Facebook did I decide to delete my account for good. Since then, I've felt less anxiety about missing Facebook posts and have become much more productive. Have I missed some of the social interactions that it brought? Sure. But I think I've gained more than I lost from the experience.
And unlike the opinion of the author, my reason for withdrawing from this bit of technology was personal. I know that there are other people who function perfectly well with Facebook and that deleting their account would not be a good solution for them. For me, however, it was something I needed to do for my own health, and I don't try to push people to delete their accounts. It was not priggish. It was healthy. And most people who decide to withdraw from technology do so for reasons that don't involve trying to show the world the 'right' way to act. Most people do it for their own health and happiness.
So my response to the author of the article is this: you're wrong. There is a point to NDU, even if there is no point to you, and I'm sorry you couldn't see that.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" Helps No One
I know someone has said something about this before on a different blog and I don't remember where it came from, but I feel that this person had a good point and I would like to repeat it. Being in college, I've been around many people who identify as Christian who have had a more modern set of experiences regarding homosexuality (as in not just some mythical evil to avoid, but rather actual people). As such, many of these collegiate Christians do not harbor the same kind of hatred for the homosexual community that their elder brethren do. However, most are unwilling to question certain parts of their religion - among them the idea that homosexuality is a sin. When confronted about this belief, many turn to the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin." The only problem with that phrase? It doesn't work. Here's why:
Christians do not truly apply the term 'sinner' to themselves.
Let's first define what I mean by 'truly apply the term'. When a person discovers something about themselves, they have two stages of discovery: logical and emotional. The logical stage is the first one people go through, as the logical part of their brain can come to the conclusion that they, for example, are gay. But the emotional acceptance of this logical fact takes much more time as the emotional part of one's brain is more stubborn than the logical part. Usually, it involves repeating the logical statement to oneself so much that one accepts the logical statement emotionally. It's at this point that a person not only knows that they are, for example, gay, but also accepts it and all of it's implications. Those who have truly applied a term or a label to themselves both logically know that the label fits them and have emotionally accepted that the label fits them. Those who don't truly apply the label have only reached the logical stage.
Now it would be more accurate to say that most Christians don't do so, but those who do truly apply the term 'sinner' to themselves won't be using the term 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. As self-proclaimed sinners, those who do truly apply the term to themselves will not segregate the world into the halves of sinner and Christian as so many others do, as it would do them no good. On the other hand, this form of segregation is exactly what happens when most Christians use the term 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. First off, homosexuality is the only sin that the term 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is used against. All other sins are either considered crimes in society (whether legal, as in murder, or social, as in the case of adultery and abortion) or are ignored (such as mixed fabrics and shaving). Since our society as a whole demonizes anyone who commits a crime, Christians are able to hate those who commit those crimes without any notice as it's the socially accepted norm. The other sins are ignored as antiquated parts of the bible as we've seen first hand that performing these sins do not cause any harm. Homosexuality, however, is strangely different as more and more Christians are seeing for themselves that it causes no harm, but don't want to give up their hatred toward homosexuality. As such, they try to sit the fence on homosexuality with 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. But again, this doesn't work.
Remember the segregation I was mentioning earlier? Turns out, this is a textbook example of creating an "us vs them" situation, one which never results in any good. When Christians apply the term 'sinner' to homosexual individuals, they don't apply it to themselves emotionally, so while they see the commonality between themselves and homosexuals in regard to their sinful nature, they do not see it emotionally. As such, the emotional part of their brain has segregated the rest of us from them, creating a seemingly disjoint set in which the 'sinners' are in one group while the Christians are in the other.
Now you might be asking yourself "why is this a bad thing? Can't we just get along even though we're separate?" The answer is no, as we've seen again and again throughout history. There seems to be something intrinsic about human nature that makes us treat those other than ourselves worse than we do. We've seen it with segregation of African Americans before Brown VS Board of Education, we've seen it with the burning of witches, with the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, and countless other times. This theme has become so common that most works in the science fiction genre involve how humans react to something 'other' than themselves, something set apart by humans due to the differences between humans and this other group, even though much is common (I would suggest reading, not watching, I, Robot; Frankenstein; and Blade Runner for good examples of this concept). As such, it's no stretch of the imagination to see that by segregating one group of people from another, we create a classic separate-but-not-equal scenario that involves at least one of these groups treating the other poorly.
Applying the term 'love the sinner, hate the sin' continues to justify the hatred that a large part of Christianity still employs. It separates us, makes us look less than human and more like 'sinner', leading to the fear, anger, and hatred we're seeing so much of in recent days from the church toward the LGBT community. Now I don't expect most Christians who employ this term to know these consequences already as the privileged majority often don't realize the cost of their privilege to the minority. As such, I am not angry with those who use said term. However, the idea that using that term makes a Christian guilt-free has been proven false, and that fact needs to be spread. Because the only way we're going to end the hatred is to end the justification for it, and that process starts with them.
Christians do not truly apply the term 'sinner' to themselves.
Let's first define what I mean by 'truly apply the term'. When a person discovers something about themselves, they have two stages of discovery: logical and emotional. The logical stage is the first one people go through, as the logical part of their brain can come to the conclusion that they, for example, are gay. But the emotional acceptance of this logical fact takes much more time as the emotional part of one's brain is more stubborn than the logical part. Usually, it involves repeating the logical statement to oneself so much that one accepts the logical statement emotionally. It's at this point that a person not only knows that they are, for example, gay, but also accepts it and all of it's implications. Those who have truly applied a term or a label to themselves both logically know that the label fits them and have emotionally accepted that the label fits them. Those who don't truly apply the label have only reached the logical stage.
Now it would be more accurate to say that most Christians don't do so, but those who do truly apply the term 'sinner' to themselves won't be using the term 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. As self-proclaimed sinners, those who do truly apply the term to themselves will not segregate the world into the halves of sinner and Christian as so many others do, as it would do them no good. On the other hand, this form of segregation is exactly what happens when most Christians use the term 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. First off, homosexuality is the only sin that the term 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is used against. All other sins are either considered crimes in society (whether legal, as in murder, or social, as in the case of adultery and abortion) or are ignored (such as mixed fabrics and shaving). Since our society as a whole demonizes anyone who commits a crime, Christians are able to hate those who commit those crimes without any notice as it's the socially accepted norm. The other sins are ignored as antiquated parts of the bible as we've seen first hand that performing these sins do not cause any harm. Homosexuality, however, is strangely different as more and more Christians are seeing for themselves that it causes no harm, but don't want to give up their hatred toward homosexuality. As such, they try to sit the fence on homosexuality with 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. But again, this doesn't work.
Remember the segregation I was mentioning earlier? Turns out, this is a textbook example of creating an "us vs them" situation, one which never results in any good. When Christians apply the term 'sinner' to homosexual individuals, they don't apply it to themselves emotionally, so while they see the commonality between themselves and homosexuals in regard to their sinful nature, they do not see it emotionally. As such, the emotional part of their brain has segregated the rest of us from them, creating a seemingly disjoint set in which the 'sinners' are in one group while the Christians are in the other.
Now you might be asking yourself "why is this a bad thing? Can't we just get along even though we're separate?" The answer is no, as we've seen again and again throughout history. There seems to be something intrinsic about human nature that makes us treat those other than ourselves worse than we do. We've seen it with segregation of African Americans before Brown VS Board of Education, we've seen it with the burning of witches, with the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, and countless other times. This theme has become so common that most works in the science fiction genre involve how humans react to something 'other' than themselves, something set apart by humans due to the differences between humans and this other group, even though much is common (I would suggest reading, not watching, I, Robot; Frankenstein; and Blade Runner for good examples of this concept). As such, it's no stretch of the imagination to see that by segregating one group of people from another, we create a classic separate-but-not-equal scenario that involves at least one of these groups treating the other poorly.
Applying the term 'love the sinner, hate the sin' continues to justify the hatred that a large part of Christianity still employs. It separates us, makes us look less than human and more like 'sinner', leading to the fear, anger, and hatred we're seeing so much of in recent days from the church toward the LGBT community. Now I don't expect most Christians who employ this term to know these consequences already as the privileged majority often don't realize the cost of their privilege to the minority. As such, I am not angry with those who use said term. However, the idea that using that term makes a Christian guilt-free has been proven false, and that fact needs to be spread. Because the only way we're going to end the hatred is to end the justification for it, and that process starts with them.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
The 'Rightness' of any religion
As a member of the LGBT community and a part time activist, I often encounter people who have been harmed in some way by people who claim to be christian. As such, I've met many people who have turned away from Christianity and, usually, turned to atheism, agnosticism, generic theism, or something else. Unfortunately, by both being exposed to these people and going to a science and technology school, I've seen many people who have an outright hatred or disdain for anyone identifying themselves as christian. While I understand the frustration many of these people are feeling, I try to see the good in everyone and give everyone a fair chance. As such, I've tried to view religion from a fairly objective standpoint. Additionally, I've done a lot of thinking to resolve some of the worst-case scenarios involving spiritual matters, and I've found some interesting results in the process. While I'll cover some other aspects later, right now I want to share the conclusion I've come to: regardless of your belief system, you are no more or less right than anyone else.
This conclusion came about after I thought long and hard about which viewpoints on spiritual matters required a leap of faith and which were founded in pure logic, and I came to the conclusion that no belief system truly was founded in pure logic. This statement probably would have many of my atheist scientific friends screaming, but I'll explain why this is so. I'm not saying any one religion is more right than the others: on the contrary, I'm trying to give certain religions more of a chance than they normally get.
Spiritual beliefs, when based solely on the existence of a god or goddess or multiple gods, can be classified into four major categories: theist, atheist, agnostic, and irrelevance. Theists are individuals who believe that at least one god or goddess exists, and this category of belief systems encompasses most belief systems on Earth. Atheist, contrary to popular belief, is not the pure opposite of Christianity, and is not an umbrella term for everyone who doesn't hold a belief in a god. Rather, it is the belief in the absence of a god. This is a very important distinction to make, as many people who are true atheists often use a certain argument (which I will get to later) to justify their beliefs that many self proclaimed atheists don't use. Most of the people, I believe, who claim to be atheists are not, in fact, atheists, but rather agnostics. Agnostics hold the belief (yes, the belief) that there is no evidence available to us to determine whether a god exists or not. And the last one, the group most probably haven't heard of, are the ones who believe in the irrelevance of a god to our daily lives. I might go over this idea later on, but for now, I wanted to clarify the four categories of divine belief before going into more detail about them.
Theism is the belief system most people are familiar with. It comprises of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the well known ancient religions of Egypt and Greece, many of the religions of the Native Americans, and thousands of others. No doubt, if you've been involved in any kind of conflict with a religious individual over the correctness of their beliefs, they'll point you toward a set of circumstances which they believe is proof of the correctness of their religious values. Some will claim that certain aspects of the universe are indicators of God's mercy, as my mom did once by saying that a release of endorphins after a critical injury was proof of God easing a creature's way into the afterlife. Others will say that the universe is too structured, too orderly to have come about randomly and without direction or design. The only problem, however, is no one can agree on the proof for these statements, and no one can agree that certain things about the universe actually do prove the existence of a god or anything about said god's nature. It is possible that some of these people might be right, but as we can't test these theories, we can neither prove them nor disprove them. As such, belief in theism requires believing something whose truth value is uncertain, thus requires a leap of faith.
Atheism is similar. However, the primary argument I hear given to support atheism is the lack of evidence of a god's existence, the idea being that this supposed lack of evidence is evidence of the lack of a god. Now, anyone who can use logic can see that this is a logical fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Before we delve further into the subject of atheism, we need to examine the definition of evidence. According to Google's built-in dictionary function, the definition of evidence goes as follows: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." The biggest part of this definition is 'available body of facts or information', meaning what we have found and can access with our senses. The idea that our current level of evidence can say something about the existence of god requires many assumptions. One, that any evidence of a god's existence will be observable by our senses, even as enhanced as they are by technology. Two, that our five senses can detect all aspects of the universe and that there is nothing we can't discover, despite the fact that our technology only enhances our five senses and does not expand upon them. Three, that our technology and science will never expand to the point where we might find evidence of a god's existence at some point in the future. And four, that we will never develop additional senses. There might be others, but these are the four I have found. There are many people who are true atheists who claim their belief system is purely logical, however, by just looking at the assumptions I brought up, and knowing that we can't confirm or deny those assumptions, we can come to the same conclusion that belief in an atheist system requires a leap of faith similar to those taken by the theists.
Naturally, we move on to the agnostics, who believe that there is no evidence to support either the theist or atheist viewpoint, so there is no reason to come to a decision regarding the existence of a god. This belief system, however, also makes an assumption, which many people in the scientific community do as well. They believe that their society's scientists have got it right. They believe that the current picture our scientists have painted with the technologically enhanced senses we have now is complete, that our scientists have left no stone unturned and that every bit of the universe they've analyzed has been done so completely and perfectly. However, this also implies that scientists haven't missed something, haven't created a false assumption about part of the universe. Agnosticism requires the belief that our scientists are not only finding the correct image of the universe, but also painting it for us, that what we're learning in school is actually accurate. You might think this is a crazy thing to consider, that believing scientists is something we do every day when we handle any piece of technology. But think about it for a second. Do you go out and try to confirm every aspect of the science behind a laptop before you use it to make sure that the scientists who discovered the principles that were used to design the laptop were, in fact, right? Of course not. You take their word as gospel. You decide that you have neither the time nor the resources (or in some cases, the intelligence) to grasp all of the scientific principles behind an object and examine each and every one of them for correctness, so you decide to believe what our scientists are telling you. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that all of the world's scientists are participating in some kind of conspiracy, but we tend to forget the fallibility of human beings when we put so much faith in our scientists. Agnosticism, like atheism and theism, requires that leap of faith.
And now comes the fourth category, irrelevance. Technically irrelevance can be thrown into any of the above three categories, as irrelevance can say that there is a god, or that there isn't, or that we don't know. But the big part of the irrelevance belief system is that it doesn't matter whether a god exists or not, that the potential impact a god can have (or would have) on the universe as we know it shouldn't affect our every day lives. This requires a belief that is less based in the existence of a god and more based in the existence of a divine purpose. The irrelevance belief states that whatever purpose a god might have for us, if there even is one, is not relevant to our lives and should be ignored. This, of course, requires the belief that we can find a purpose that is meaningful enough to us to bring significant meaning to our lives without having to turn to the divine for that purpose. That requires making arbitrary assumptions about who and what can provide said purpose and how to define meaningful purpose. The answers to these questions are arbitrary, and as they can't be proven or disproven, they require a leap of faith to believe in.
The idea that a belief system is better than others because it is not, in fact, a belief system is a logical fallacy, as I've already shown. The idea that any belief system which tries to make any kind of determination on the existence or nature of a god is nothing more than a logical conclusion is also false. The idea that an atheist is superior to a theist simply due to either party's beliefs is nothing more than a continuation of the problems that drive many people away from modern religions, and the prevalence of this viewpoint in the LGBT community, among others, is saddening. It's the kind of self-righteousness and bigotry that we've been fighting for years to end, and by calling ourselves superior for simply having a belief system, we continue it. If we're to ask for equality and acceptance, we have to extend that same courtesy to others that we don't agree with, to create an example for others to follow. And to do that, the hatred and bigotry need to end.
And not just on the theist side, but on all sides.
This conclusion came about after I thought long and hard about which viewpoints on spiritual matters required a leap of faith and which were founded in pure logic, and I came to the conclusion that no belief system truly was founded in pure logic. This statement probably would have many of my atheist scientific friends screaming, but I'll explain why this is so. I'm not saying any one religion is more right than the others: on the contrary, I'm trying to give certain religions more of a chance than they normally get.
Spiritual beliefs, when based solely on the existence of a god or goddess or multiple gods, can be classified into four major categories: theist, atheist, agnostic, and irrelevance. Theists are individuals who believe that at least one god or goddess exists, and this category of belief systems encompasses most belief systems on Earth. Atheist, contrary to popular belief, is not the pure opposite of Christianity, and is not an umbrella term for everyone who doesn't hold a belief in a god. Rather, it is the belief in the absence of a god. This is a very important distinction to make, as many people who are true atheists often use a certain argument (which I will get to later) to justify their beliefs that many self proclaimed atheists don't use. Most of the people, I believe, who claim to be atheists are not, in fact, atheists, but rather agnostics. Agnostics hold the belief (yes, the belief) that there is no evidence available to us to determine whether a god exists or not. And the last one, the group most probably haven't heard of, are the ones who believe in the irrelevance of a god to our daily lives. I might go over this idea later on, but for now, I wanted to clarify the four categories of divine belief before going into more detail about them.
Theism is the belief system most people are familiar with. It comprises of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the well known ancient religions of Egypt and Greece, many of the religions of the Native Americans, and thousands of others. No doubt, if you've been involved in any kind of conflict with a religious individual over the correctness of their beliefs, they'll point you toward a set of circumstances which they believe is proof of the correctness of their religious values. Some will claim that certain aspects of the universe are indicators of God's mercy, as my mom did once by saying that a release of endorphins after a critical injury was proof of God easing a creature's way into the afterlife. Others will say that the universe is too structured, too orderly to have come about randomly and without direction or design. The only problem, however, is no one can agree on the proof for these statements, and no one can agree that certain things about the universe actually do prove the existence of a god or anything about said god's nature. It is possible that some of these people might be right, but as we can't test these theories, we can neither prove them nor disprove them. As such, belief in theism requires believing something whose truth value is uncertain, thus requires a leap of faith.
Atheism is similar. However, the primary argument I hear given to support atheism is the lack of evidence of a god's existence, the idea being that this supposed lack of evidence is evidence of the lack of a god. Now, anyone who can use logic can see that this is a logical fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Before we delve further into the subject of atheism, we need to examine the definition of evidence. According to Google's built-in dictionary function, the definition of evidence goes as follows: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." The biggest part of this definition is 'available body of facts or information', meaning what we have found and can access with our senses. The idea that our current level of evidence can say something about the existence of god requires many assumptions. One, that any evidence of a god's existence will be observable by our senses, even as enhanced as they are by technology. Two, that our five senses can detect all aspects of the universe and that there is nothing we can't discover, despite the fact that our technology only enhances our five senses and does not expand upon them. Three, that our technology and science will never expand to the point where we might find evidence of a god's existence at some point in the future. And four, that we will never develop additional senses. There might be others, but these are the four I have found. There are many people who are true atheists who claim their belief system is purely logical, however, by just looking at the assumptions I brought up, and knowing that we can't confirm or deny those assumptions, we can come to the same conclusion that belief in an atheist system requires a leap of faith similar to those taken by the theists.
Naturally, we move on to the agnostics, who believe that there is no evidence to support either the theist or atheist viewpoint, so there is no reason to come to a decision regarding the existence of a god. This belief system, however, also makes an assumption, which many people in the scientific community do as well. They believe that their society's scientists have got it right. They believe that the current picture our scientists have painted with the technologically enhanced senses we have now is complete, that our scientists have left no stone unturned and that every bit of the universe they've analyzed has been done so completely and perfectly. However, this also implies that scientists haven't missed something, haven't created a false assumption about part of the universe. Agnosticism requires the belief that our scientists are not only finding the correct image of the universe, but also painting it for us, that what we're learning in school is actually accurate. You might think this is a crazy thing to consider, that believing scientists is something we do every day when we handle any piece of technology. But think about it for a second. Do you go out and try to confirm every aspect of the science behind a laptop before you use it to make sure that the scientists who discovered the principles that were used to design the laptop were, in fact, right? Of course not. You take their word as gospel. You decide that you have neither the time nor the resources (or in some cases, the intelligence) to grasp all of the scientific principles behind an object and examine each and every one of them for correctness, so you decide to believe what our scientists are telling you. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that all of the world's scientists are participating in some kind of conspiracy, but we tend to forget the fallibility of human beings when we put so much faith in our scientists. Agnosticism, like atheism and theism, requires that leap of faith.
And now comes the fourth category, irrelevance. Technically irrelevance can be thrown into any of the above three categories, as irrelevance can say that there is a god, or that there isn't, or that we don't know. But the big part of the irrelevance belief system is that it doesn't matter whether a god exists or not, that the potential impact a god can have (or would have) on the universe as we know it shouldn't affect our every day lives. This requires a belief that is less based in the existence of a god and more based in the existence of a divine purpose. The irrelevance belief states that whatever purpose a god might have for us, if there even is one, is not relevant to our lives and should be ignored. This, of course, requires the belief that we can find a purpose that is meaningful enough to us to bring significant meaning to our lives without having to turn to the divine for that purpose. That requires making arbitrary assumptions about who and what can provide said purpose and how to define meaningful purpose. The answers to these questions are arbitrary, and as they can't be proven or disproven, they require a leap of faith to believe in.
The idea that a belief system is better than others because it is not, in fact, a belief system is a logical fallacy, as I've already shown. The idea that any belief system which tries to make any kind of determination on the existence or nature of a god is nothing more than a logical conclusion is also false. The idea that an atheist is superior to a theist simply due to either party's beliefs is nothing more than a continuation of the problems that drive many people away from modern religions, and the prevalence of this viewpoint in the LGBT community, among others, is saddening. It's the kind of self-righteousness and bigotry that we've been fighting for years to end, and by calling ourselves superior for simply having a belief system, we continue it. If we're to ask for equality and acceptance, we have to extend that same courtesy to others that we don't agree with, to create an example for others to follow. And to do that, the hatred and bigotry need to end.
And not just on the theist side, but on all sides.
"Go Live Your Dreams": Total Bullshit
Often times I run across articles on various business-related sites that have something to do with job choice. Of course, this isn't unexpected. What is interesting is the number of articles that deal with pursuing one's 'dream job' or doing something a person loves. They're the kind of mushy inspirational posts you might see in a school counselor's office, designed to keep you focused on some far-off dream, telling you that if you work hard, you can achieve your goals.
It's a nice thought, but it's total bullshit.
I'll give you an example. I have an acquaintance who went to school to pursue a petroleum engineering degree, finding the idea of doing whatever it is petroleum engineers do to be appealing to what he wanted to do with his life. The only problem was this: while he had the education, he was openly and flamboyantly gay, the the culture of part of the workforce he was trying to get into was fairly conservative and homophobic. Additionally, as more and more companies switch from petroleum to other energy sources, the availability of jobs in the petroleum engineering area will dwindle. As such, even with the necessary education, demand for jobs that my acquaintance was going into wasn't high enough to get him his dream job. And trust me, he worked his ass off, so this wasn't the result of being mediocre. And his story isn't the only one I've heard: more and more I'm hearing of people who went to school to pursue a particular job but didn't get that job because there wasn't enough demand for their services. This is one of the many ways that what I call the "Modern American Dream" isn't widely possible.
Let's move beyond the realm of college students and go to other people. Let's say a woman named Bertha wants to write books, as she believes its her purpose in life. Here's the only problem: writing books takes time, time that, to Bertha and many other Americans, can be better spend doing something that earns money. As such, Bertha isn't going to be able to write books full time and survive, unless she's privileged enough to write something that lots of people will love and perhaps be turned into a movie (and with how unpredictable people are, this is more of a matter of luck). It also depends on the opinions of whatever publishers she tries to send her books to, so being able to survive while living her dream full time is in the hands of others. Let's say, however, that Bertha has a job as a grocery store clerk, and earns minimum wage. It's barely enough for her to survive on, but she can, at least survive. Will she pursue her dream of becoming an author in her spare time? No. Why? Because Bertha, like so many other Americans, believe the only things worth doing are things that earn you money or material goods. Think about it: the kinds of hobbies that exist in America consist of collecting things (which gains material goods) and refining skills that could one day get someone famous (writing, music, etc, etc). There's little else in the way of hobbies that we Americans do, because those are the ones that have a possibility of gaining us things or money, or both. Our hobbies are never for enjoyment, they're for personal gain, because that's how our capitalist/corporatist society works.
Let's say, however, that Bertha is like me, working a boring job (or in my case, still working through college) but able to pursue her dreams in her spare time. This only works if her dream is something that doesn't require training or experience to perform. Creative arts are probably the only kind of dream that can be pursued without official training and certification: most others require a college degree and some amount of training. Let's take my acquaintance from earlier. Let's say he works at a fast food restaurant to survive, but he wants to do petroleum engineering in his spare time. He's unfortunately screwed because there's no way in hell a company is going to hire a hobbyist for a job that needs a petroleum engineering degree or going to hire him part time or hire him without experience. It just won't happen. So, he has a choice: either give up on his dream and settle for another dream, or go to college and get the training and certification he needs to be applicable for the job. He'll still run into the problems he faced when we talked about him earlier, but they're now a bit reduced.
Of course, this depends on the ability to get a college education. With rising college costs and costs of living, more and more people are unable to get college degrees and pursue whatever dreams they have that require a college education. And with more and more jobs requiring degrees (hell, even trash men need them now), less and less people are able to pursue a job at all, much less one they want to work at. Can these people pursue their dreams? No, at least not most of them. Only those whose dreams lie in creative pursuits truly have the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and if they don't care about getting money from them, then they are some of the few can achieve them.
Of course, that won't matter if they don't have the time to pursue those dreams. More and more people, especially those with families, are working multiple minimum wage jobs just to support their families. As such, they don't have time to pursue their dreams: they can't write, they can't act, they can't work on their music, they can't work on a college education. They simply don't have the time. As such, these people, trapped as they are by our capitalist caste system (more on this later), can't pursue their dreams, no matter what they are. They might be able to after their kids leave, but by then, they start to face age discrimination, slowly deteriorating mental and physical abilities, and a general loss of interest in a dream they gave up a long time ago that it no longer becomes feasible to pursue it.
So many of these business sites have articles that try to tell people that the world is full of opportunities, and that all you need to do is take advantage of them. Of course, these are usually written by middle to upper class individuals, people who have never had problems finding opportunities in life. They have a strong disconnect from the rest of the world, and believe that everything else is as bright and sunny as their world. Of course, so do many of the people who read those articles, so there's no need for the writers to expand their horizons. For them, they have opportunities, and there's no reason for them to consider those who don't.
Following your dreams is a nice thought.
But unless you're rich, it's only just that: a thought.
It's a nice thought, but it's total bullshit.
I'll give you an example. I have an acquaintance who went to school to pursue a petroleum engineering degree, finding the idea of doing whatever it is petroleum engineers do to be appealing to what he wanted to do with his life. The only problem was this: while he had the education, he was openly and flamboyantly gay, the the culture of part of the workforce he was trying to get into was fairly conservative and homophobic. Additionally, as more and more companies switch from petroleum to other energy sources, the availability of jobs in the petroleum engineering area will dwindle. As such, even with the necessary education, demand for jobs that my acquaintance was going into wasn't high enough to get him his dream job. And trust me, he worked his ass off, so this wasn't the result of being mediocre. And his story isn't the only one I've heard: more and more I'm hearing of people who went to school to pursue a particular job but didn't get that job because there wasn't enough demand for their services. This is one of the many ways that what I call the "Modern American Dream" isn't widely possible.
Let's move beyond the realm of college students and go to other people. Let's say a woman named Bertha wants to write books, as she believes its her purpose in life. Here's the only problem: writing books takes time, time that, to Bertha and many other Americans, can be better spend doing something that earns money. As such, Bertha isn't going to be able to write books full time and survive, unless she's privileged enough to write something that lots of people will love and perhaps be turned into a movie (and with how unpredictable people are, this is more of a matter of luck). It also depends on the opinions of whatever publishers she tries to send her books to, so being able to survive while living her dream full time is in the hands of others. Let's say, however, that Bertha has a job as a grocery store clerk, and earns minimum wage. It's barely enough for her to survive on, but she can, at least survive. Will she pursue her dream of becoming an author in her spare time? No. Why? Because Bertha, like so many other Americans, believe the only things worth doing are things that earn you money or material goods. Think about it: the kinds of hobbies that exist in America consist of collecting things (which gains material goods) and refining skills that could one day get someone famous (writing, music, etc, etc). There's little else in the way of hobbies that we Americans do, because those are the ones that have a possibility of gaining us things or money, or both. Our hobbies are never for enjoyment, they're for personal gain, because that's how our capitalist/corporatist society works.
Let's say, however, that Bertha is like me, working a boring job (or in my case, still working through college) but able to pursue her dreams in her spare time. This only works if her dream is something that doesn't require training or experience to perform. Creative arts are probably the only kind of dream that can be pursued without official training and certification: most others require a college degree and some amount of training. Let's take my acquaintance from earlier. Let's say he works at a fast food restaurant to survive, but he wants to do petroleum engineering in his spare time. He's unfortunately screwed because there's no way in hell a company is going to hire a hobbyist for a job that needs a petroleum engineering degree or going to hire him part time or hire him without experience. It just won't happen. So, he has a choice: either give up on his dream and settle for another dream, or go to college and get the training and certification he needs to be applicable for the job. He'll still run into the problems he faced when we talked about him earlier, but they're now a bit reduced.
Of course, this depends on the ability to get a college education. With rising college costs and costs of living, more and more people are unable to get college degrees and pursue whatever dreams they have that require a college education. And with more and more jobs requiring degrees (hell, even trash men need them now), less and less people are able to pursue a job at all, much less one they want to work at. Can these people pursue their dreams? No, at least not most of them. Only those whose dreams lie in creative pursuits truly have the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and if they don't care about getting money from them, then they are some of the few can achieve them.
Of course, that won't matter if they don't have the time to pursue those dreams. More and more people, especially those with families, are working multiple minimum wage jobs just to support their families. As such, they don't have time to pursue their dreams: they can't write, they can't act, they can't work on their music, they can't work on a college education. They simply don't have the time. As such, these people, trapped as they are by our capitalist caste system (more on this later), can't pursue their dreams, no matter what they are. They might be able to after their kids leave, but by then, they start to face age discrimination, slowly deteriorating mental and physical abilities, and a general loss of interest in a dream they gave up a long time ago that it no longer becomes feasible to pursue it.
So many of these business sites have articles that try to tell people that the world is full of opportunities, and that all you need to do is take advantage of them. Of course, these are usually written by middle to upper class individuals, people who have never had problems finding opportunities in life. They have a strong disconnect from the rest of the world, and believe that everything else is as bright and sunny as their world. Of course, so do many of the people who read those articles, so there's no need for the writers to expand their horizons. For them, they have opportunities, and there's no reason for them to consider those who don't.
Following your dreams is a nice thought.
But unless you're rich, it's only just that: a thought.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
My Thoughts on the "iPhone of Guns"
Recently, the Washington Post had an article dealing with something called a 'smart gun'. This gun is designed to prevent people who don't own the gun from using the gun, with the goal being a reduction in cops being shot with their own guns in a fight, kids shooting themselves with their parents' guns, and mentally unstable individuals from going on a shooting spree with a gun they don't own. The article had views from both advocates and opponents of this device, and I'd like to respond to some of those views.
You can read the article here: Washington Post Article
Early in the article, points from both sides of the debate as to the value of the smart gun are presented. One of the first, brought about by opponents to the smart gun, was the following:
But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.
A similar view is brought up later in the article:
A commenter in an online Glock forum explained the concern this way: "They can’t even make a cellphone that works reliably when you need it, and some dumbass thinks he can make a reliable techno-gadget gun that is supposed to safeguard you in dire circumstances?"
This view on the technology in the smart gun is extremely ignorant on the part of the commentators, but I don't expect people who have never worked with a computer to know why it's ignorant. First of all, you can't reasonably compare the smart gun with a smart phone, as the article, and the commentators, attempt to do (I use the term 'smart gun' simply because it's what the article uses). A cell phone, even a dumb phone, is incredibly complex. It requires an operating system that can coordinate several programs at once, interrupt processes that are currently going on in case something more important (such as a phone call) come up, and synchronizing all of the processes going on in the phone. This level of sophistication and synchronization in any computer system is no easy feat -- otherwise Bill Gates would not be as famous as he is today. And as with any technology, the more sophisticated it becomes, the more likely it is to fail. As such, smart phones, which are the phones the commentators were most likely referring to, are very likely to fail.
But the idea that the smart gun is as unreliable as the smart phone is false. The technology in the smart gun, which consists of some kind of personal identification mechanism which then allows the gun to fire, is no more advanced than a car door remote. In the gun featured in the article, it consists of a watch that activates the gun when the gun is in close proximity to the watch. The technology used in this mechanism is the same kind used in car door remotes. With excessive use, the technology can become unreliable, but even with at least twice daily use, car door remotes are extremely reliable. And I can guarantee you, despite what the NRA wants everyone to believe, no one, perhaps with the exception of some law enforcement personnel, will use a personal hand gun as much as they use a car door remote. So the large amount of concern around this mechanism failing at the exact moment it's needed is the result of flawed logic.
Some more ideas brought up in the article surround the idea of the government imposing these safety restrictions on guns:
Although National Rifle Association officials did not respond to requests for comment about smart-gun technology, the group fiercely opposes “government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire,” according to the Web site of its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. “And NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”
Some of their fears, however, are not unfounded:
Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year
Also, another point was brought up later in the article about the price of the smart gun:
The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.
I won't go back into the debate about the reliability of the technology, but another point has been brought up: government-required technology. The idea of regulations requiring safety-enhancing technology on various other products are not new: the seat belt and the air bag are good examples. But while people are able to accept these safety measures, any attempt to improve the safety of guns is seen as an attempt by the government to take guns away from 'responsible gun owners' (I'll get to why this concept doesn't exist in this country in a later post). What I find odd is that many of the people that bring this point up don't seem to realize that, despite the government-mandated safety measures added to cars, cars weren't suddenly banned by the government. The ones that didn't have the safety measures were either banned or simply phased out of existence as more and more people chose the safer option of having a car with an air bag and seat belts over one that didn't. The existence of such technology wouldn't even require a government ban to become the new standard, as more people would want the safer product. The same is true of the smart gun. Firearm production companies would see this trend and capitalize on it, producing more smart guns and phasing their more dangerous counterparts out of production. As more companies start producing these products, the prices of the smart guns would drop to competitive prices -- prices much more affordable for the average gun user. The idea that the gun is too expensive to be feasible is correct, but only for the moment. Soon, it will be widely available and popular, and the price will drop. The cost concern will soon become moot.
In regards to the concern over the government banning non-safe firearms, all I have to say is this:
You are not required to own a gun.
Do you have the legal right? Yes. Do you have to own a gun? No. Do you have to have the highest-tech gun money can buy? No. Thing is, smart guns are the future of the gun industry, and while an overall ban on non-smart guns is certainly possible sometime down the line, there is no reason a gun owner can't get a smart gun, which will be reasonably priced by the time such a ban would be feasible enough to be implemented, or to go without. You are not going to be robbed the instant you don't have some protective measure in place, despite what happens in every Sims game ever.
The final main point brought up in the article is the effectiveness of such a safety measure. Some of the following figures were shown regarding the number of certain kinds of gun related deaths:
In 2010, children under 18 accounted for 98 of the 606 unintentional or accidental firearm deaths in the United States.
As for school shootings, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study in 2003 analyzing firearms used by students in 323 school-related shootings found that 37 percent of the guns came from the shooter’s home and 23 percent from a friend or relative.
The safety measures put in place on the smart gun are designed to prevent these sorts of disasters from occurring. As the numbers show, many of the accidental firearm deaths were children, almost all of whom died by playing with their parents' guns. A smart gun, with the watch and gun stored in separate places, would prevent these deaths, or at least significantly reduce them. Additionally, a gun that can recognize its owner by their fingerprints will prevent it from being used in the large number of school shootings in which another person's gun was used. The idea that safety measures such as this, measures designed to prevent the deaths of children and college students, are nothing more than an attempt to rid the world of guns is incredibly short-sighted and, quite frankly, selfish.
There were also concerns regarding the fact that the smart guns won't remove all of this country's gun violence. While this is certainly true, the idea that we shouldn't fix only a part of a problem if we can't fix the entire problem is incredibly irresponsible. Do we prevent the production of medication simply because that medication won't work on everyone? No. Did we prevent the addition of seat belts and air bags to cars simply because they would not prevent every death from car accidents? No. Should we prevent the installation of safety measures into guns simply because they won't prevent every gun-related death? Of course not. The only way to do that would be to remove guns completely, and in a country as unstable as ours, that's never going to happen. So, it would be better to produce the smart guns and make those gun owners who purchase them safer rather than keep everything the way it is.
Smart guns are the future of the gun industry. They are safer, and the safety technology is reliable. While they are currently expensive, they will become more popular over time, and as such, their price will drop. Even if a government mandate is handed down that prevents the production of non-smart firearms, by the time enough support exists for that to happen, smart guns will be cheap enough for anyone who still wants to own a gun to buy one. And while they won't prevent every gun death, they will prevent many of the gun deaths involving children, which is why the push for gun safety measures has increased so much in recent years. And really, if a product can prevent needless deaths, why shouldn't it be produced?
You can read the article here: Washington Post Article
Early in the article, points from both sides of the debate as to the value of the smart gun are presented. One of the first, brought about by opponents to the smart gun, was the following:
But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.
A similar view is brought up later in the article:
A commenter in an online Glock forum explained the concern this way: "They can’t even make a cellphone that works reliably when you need it, and some dumbass thinks he can make a reliable techno-gadget gun that is supposed to safeguard you in dire circumstances?"
This view on the technology in the smart gun is extremely ignorant on the part of the commentators, but I don't expect people who have never worked with a computer to know why it's ignorant. First of all, you can't reasonably compare the smart gun with a smart phone, as the article, and the commentators, attempt to do (I use the term 'smart gun' simply because it's what the article uses). A cell phone, even a dumb phone, is incredibly complex. It requires an operating system that can coordinate several programs at once, interrupt processes that are currently going on in case something more important (such as a phone call) come up, and synchronizing all of the processes going on in the phone. This level of sophistication and synchronization in any computer system is no easy feat -- otherwise Bill Gates would not be as famous as he is today. And as with any technology, the more sophisticated it becomes, the more likely it is to fail. As such, smart phones, which are the phones the commentators were most likely referring to, are very likely to fail.
But the idea that the smart gun is as unreliable as the smart phone is false. The technology in the smart gun, which consists of some kind of personal identification mechanism which then allows the gun to fire, is no more advanced than a car door remote. In the gun featured in the article, it consists of a watch that activates the gun when the gun is in close proximity to the watch. The technology used in this mechanism is the same kind used in car door remotes. With excessive use, the technology can become unreliable, but even with at least twice daily use, car door remotes are extremely reliable. And I can guarantee you, despite what the NRA wants everyone to believe, no one, perhaps with the exception of some law enforcement personnel, will use a personal hand gun as much as they use a car door remote. So the large amount of concern around this mechanism failing at the exact moment it's needed is the result of flawed logic.
Some more ideas brought up in the article surround the idea of the government imposing these safety restrictions on guns:
Although National Rifle Association officials did not respond to requests for comment about smart-gun technology, the group fiercely opposes “government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire,” according to the Web site of its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. “And NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”
Some of their fears, however, are not unfounded:
Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year
Also, another point was brought up later in the article about the price of the smart gun:
The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.
I won't go back into the debate about the reliability of the technology, but another point has been brought up: government-required technology. The idea of regulations requiring safety-enhancing technology on various other products are not new: the seat belt and the air bag are good examples. But while people are able to accept these safety measures, any attempt to improve the safety of guns is seen as an attempt by the government to take guns away from 'responsible gun owners' (I'll get to why this concept doesn't exist in this country in a later post). What I find odd is that many of the people that bring this point up don't seem to realize that, despite the government-mandated safety measures added to cars, cars weren't suddenly banned by the government. The ones that didn't have the safety measures were either banned or simply phased out of existence as more and more people chose the safer option of having a car with an air bag and seat belts over one that didn't. The existence of such technology wouldn't even require a government ban to become the new standard, as more people would want the safer product. The same is true of the smart gun. Firearm production companies would see this trend and capitalize on it, producing more smart guns and phasing their more dangerous counterparts out of production. As more companies start producing these products, the prices of the smart guns would drop to competitive prices -- prices much more affordable for the average gun user. The idea that the gun is too expensive to be feasible is correct, but only for the moment. Soon, it will be widely available and popular, and the price will drop. The cost concern will soon become moot.
In regards to the concern over the government banning non-safe firearms, all I have to say is this:
You are not required to own a gun.
Do you have the legal right? Yes. Do you have to own a gun? No. Do you have to have the highest-tech gun money can buy? No. Thing is, smart guns are the future of the gun industry, and while an overall ban on non-smart guns is certainly possible sometime down the line, there is no reason a gun owner can't get a smart gun, which will be reasonably priced by the time such a ban would be feasible enough to be implemented, or to go without. You are not going to be robbed the instant you don't have some protective measure in place, despite what happens in every Sims game ever.
The final main point brought up in the article is the effectiveness of such a safety measure. Some of the following figures were shown regarding the number of certain kinds of gun related deaths:
In 2010, children under 18 accounted for 98 of the 606 unintentional or accidental firearm deaths in the United States.
As for school shootings, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study in 2003 analyzing firearms used by students in 323 school-related shootings found that 37 percent of the guns came from the shooter’s home and 23 percent from a friend or relative.
The safety measures put in place on the smart gun are designed to prevent these sorts of disasters from occurring. As the numbers show, many of the accidental firearm deaths were children, almost all of whom died by playing with their parents' guns. A smart gun, with the watch and gun stored in separate places, would prevent these deaths, or at least significantly reduce them. Additionally, a gun that can recognize its owner by their fingerprints will prevent it from being used in the large number of school shootings in which another person's gun was used. The idea that safety measures such as this, measures designed to prevent the deaths of children and college students, are nothing more than an attempt to rid the world of guns is incredibly short-sighted and, quite frankly, selfish.
There were also concerns regarding the fact that the smart guns won't remove all of this country's gun violence. While this is certainly true, the idea that we shouldn't fix only a part of a problem if we can't fix the entire problem is incredibly irresponsible. Do we prevent the production of medication simply because that medication won't work on everyone? No. Did we prevent the addition of seat belts and air bags to cars simply because they would not prevent every death from car accidents? No. Should we prevent the installation of safety measures into guns simply because they won't prevent every gun-related death? Of course not. The only way to do that would be to remove guns completely, and in a country as unstable as ours, that's never going to happen. So, it would be better to produce the smart guns and make those gun owners who purchase them safer rather than keep everything the way it is.
Smart guns are the future of the gun industry. They are safer, and the safety technology is reliable. While they are currently expensive, they will become more popular over time, and as such, their price will drop. Even if a government mandate is handed down that prevents the production of non-smart firearms, by the time enough support exists for that to happen, smart guns will be cheap enough for anyone who still wants to own a gun to buy one. And while they won't prevent every gun death, they will prevent many of the gun deaths involving children, which is why the push for gun safety measures has increased so much in recent years. And really, if a product can prevent needless deaths, why shouldn't it be produced?
Introduction Post
As I like to do any time I start up a new blog, I always start with an introduction thread intended to tell more about myself and what the blog I'm starting will contain. So, I guess I'm gonna start with myself.
My name is David, and I'm currently a senior attending the Missouri University of Science and Technology, although I hope I can soon transfer to UMKC. I am openly gay, although I prefer not to make a big deal out of it. I also consider myself a bear, and the only time I make a big deal out of my sexuality is when I show pride in the ability to resist the common stereotype surrounding gay men. I'm also an advocate of disabled rights, a defender of the obese and the poor. I'm also very anti-corporatist, and many of my views tend to lean toward the 'liberal' side of economic and social issues. I do, however, try to consider the views of all parties involved in an issue to try to understand both sides before I come to any decisions regarding the issue at hand.
This blog will contain my thoughts on a variety of philosophical and political subjects, ranging from gun control to the nature of justice to the correctness of any religion. I tend to think of things a lot, especially when I'm doing something that doesn't require a lot of concentration, and if I think of something particularly interesting, I'll probably make a post about it if I can remember to do so.
So, I hope you all enjoy my blog and the thoughts I have to offer.
My name is David, and I'm currently a senior attending the Missouri University of Science and Technology, although I hope I can soon transfer to UMKC. I am openly gay, although I prefer not to make a big deal out of it. I also consider myself a bear, and the only time I make a big deal out of my sexuality is when I show pride in the ability to resist the common stereotype surrounding gay men. I'm also an advocate of disabled rights, a defender of the obese and the poor. I'm also very anti-corporatist, and many of my views tend to lean toward the 'liberal' side of economic and social issues. I do, however, try to consider the views of all parties involved in an issue to try to understand both sides before I come to any decisions regarding the issue at hand.
This blog will contain my thoughts on a variety of philosophical and political subjects, ranging from gun control to the nature of justice to the correctness of any religion. I tend to think of things a lot, especially when I'm doing something that doesn't require a lot of concentration, and if I think of something particularly interesting, I'll probably make a post about it if I can remember to do so.
So, I hope you all enjoy my blog and the thoughts I have to offer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)