No comparison between slavery and effects of carnivore diet

There is absolutely no way one can claim that there is parallel between slavery and being a carnivore. Sure, in both cases living creatures are kept against their will, and both try to silence their opposition through gag rules (the gag rule on discussing slavery in congress and the Ag Gag law that prevents people from filming inside factory farms), and both defend what they do as a positive good and claim that it would be more harmful for those held in captivity to be freed (or at least that the captives are treated benevolently and could not survive on their own). Oh, yes, and that it should be something that should be done away with gradually if at all. But, other than that, people that make that ignorant jump of logic have nothing to go on.

My thoughts on Hippies Who Use Drugs but Avoid Red Dye 40

Why is it that modern day hippies are the likely to do all of the following: eat organic, do drugs, and drink alcohol.  Now, my goal is not to preach that people should abstain from any of the following.  My choice to avoid the latter two in no way shapes how strange I find this correlation.  I guess what I fail to understand is how someone can be terrified of a slight possibility of a link between Red 40 (the food color) and cancer, but ignore the obvious brain cell damage done by drugs.  What is it that exempts drug use from being seen as dangerous to these people?  I'm not trying to argue that smoking pot will result in immediate death, but smoking anything is bad for the body.  At least as bad as eating foods containing Red 40 (and a whole host of other non-organic or natural food additives).  Some would respond that pot is natural.  But this is tantamount to saying I won't let a robot kick me in the nuts but a human or animal can because that is more natural.  And of course there is the "A drink a day is good for you crowd."   Yes, I've heard about these studies.  But, I've also heard the studies suggesting that even small amounts of alcohol is linked to things like cancer or spending huge quantities of time reminding oneself how healthy it is to drink moderately.   That's not even considering the fact that small amounts of alcohol can also cause consumption of large amounts of alcohol in most Americans.  And I've also noticed that most studies favoring a drink a day do acknowledge that people found to  be healthier in these studies also exercised and ate better diets.  I imagine this much like a police man, a security guard and a thief in a room... and someone claiming crime is lower in that room because of the thief.  Now before the slurred voices of millions shout, "Zass ridiculuz!"  I will again assert that I'm not arguing for prohibition here.  I'm simply saying if you won't eat Red 40 or modified corn starch because of a remote possibility of damage to your body, how does this choice intelligently coexist with the choice to use drugs and drink alcohol.  Really, what I'm trying to say is that if you are going to get drunk and high, maybe you can save some money by not buying the Kashi Cereal.  

My Thoughts on Doctors and Insurance Companies

"Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing. " - Voltaire               

We've all been to a doctor's office. And anyone who has been to a doctor knows that no prices are listed anywhere for anything the doctor plans to do.  I like to refer to this as ex post facto rape.    The doctor runs all sorts of tests and treatments and then bends you over a few months later by sending an outrageous bill that he/she never once gave you the slightest hint would be so high.  Basically, a doctor could say your visit cost $10,000,000 and really what can you do 2 months later when you get the bill?  Ask them to take back the check up?  Or undo the tests they ran?  Shouldn't doctors have to tell you prices up front?  Shouldn't patients have to sign an agreement before hand explaining all the fees that will be incurred for the medical services.  What other job gets to make up its fees without telling anyone what they will be until after the service?   It is the equivalent of going to McDonalds and being handed your meal without having to pay.  After you finish eating it, the cashier comes out and tells you some random price that your meal costs and informs you that you have to pay whatever they say because you ate the meal.  And then, my favorite part of the whole deal is getting the insurance notice letting you know how much was billed, how much the insurance company agreed to pay, what was paid by insurance, and what you still owe.  My favorite was the time I had blood drawn for an allergy test.  The hospital billed the insurance company $210 (which is insane to begin with).  The insurance company had agreed to pay $350 for the service.  So they sent the hospital $250 and said that I owed a $100 co-pay.  In short, the insurance company was paying more than the hospital was even asking for the service.  And they still stuck me with a $100 bill.  This is not just ex post facto rape, rather ex post facto gang rape by the both the doctor and the insurance company.  No wonder insurance costs more than buying a home.  I believe the premium for insurance for a family of four is around $1400 a month.  That is more than a mortgage payment for most people.   It is pretty messed up that when you meet someone with some catastrophic illness, your first thought is "that's terrible" but the second thought is "at least someone is getting his money's worth from his insurance premiums."

Why Kids are Messed Up

These are my thoughts about why children are doomed to be completely messed up by this world.  Anyone who has spent half a moment contemplating the message behind stories that are the bread and butter of childhood know that we are inflicting mental trauma upon our children and acting as willing participants. 

            Now before you start shouting ‘what did Bambi ever do wrong’, let me insist you simply listen and learn.  I’ll get to the bastard deer later (yes, having your mother roasted in a fire and possessing no knowledge of your father’s whereabouts makes you a bastard. So again, listen). 

            Instead I shall begin with the story of Hansel and Gretel.  Let us lay out the facts.  Hansel and Gretel’s parents were poor.  So that their step-mother decides to abandon them in the woods so she can afford to eat.  And does their father put up a fight?  No.  Not really. So we are sending our children the message that getting a good lay now and then trumps keeping your kids alive if the two values come into conflict.  Poor Hansel and Gretel, if only this were the only abuse that they had suffered.  But clearly these two are some f’ed up little freaks.  Let’s simply examine how this story ends.  Gretel pushes the witch into a burning stove and then the two children proceed to merrily celebrate her death and then rob her.  Let’s paint the scene. The smell of roasting human flesh and human hair is permeating the air.  Yet, Hansel and Gretel are unaffected by the aroma and proceed to dance around like fools.  I don’t know about you, but if I pushed an old woman into a stove the first thing I’d do is get everybody outside cause you know the bitch is going to smell.  So, we have to ask what kind of crazy stuff was going on in their home as children that human flesh is like a glade air-freshener to these two?   Plus, Gretel is completely un-phased by the fact that she just committed murder, even if in self-defense.  She never says, ‘oh god Hansel, what have I done’ or ‘how dreadful’.  No we are left with the image of a little girl with the fire blazing in her glazed-over eyes with a devilish grin shouting ‘burn, burn, burn!!!’ 

And what kind of conflict resolution skills are we teaching our kids?  Did Gretel try to negotiate with the witch, did she try to understand what the source of the witches actions was.  No, she preemptively stuck the witch without warning based on her assumption that the witch might want to eat her too.  Many would claim that this is an un-American value to teach our children.  I mean, it’s not like the witch had made it definitively clear that she planned to eat her.  It was Hansel’s war.  She should either have minded her business or she should have formed a forest council that could make empty threats against the witch so that the witch could mock the council’s resolutions with blatant disregard.  And when Gretel demanded that they take action to save her brother, they could call her a war-monger and claim she just wanted to get cheap candy through imperialistic dominion over the witch’s home.

Finally, when the kids get home, we are led to believe that the father was miserable over leaving his children in the woods?  And his kids forgive him! Oh no, if my dad left me in the woods to starve, he might just have to die.  Maybe they didn’t have a stove for the cold-hearted Gretel to push him in.  Of course, it ends with them reveling in money they stole from the burnt carcass formerly known as the witch.  And based on the fact that they had all this money, the story concludes that they live happily ever after.  Let’s sum this up for little Johnny, your parents may leave you to die in the woods, but if you murder an old woman and steal her wealth and return home, everyone lives happily ever after.  There are probably pornos with more ethically sound story-lines. 

Can One Be a Moral Relativist and Still Believe in the Existence of Right and Wrong?

Can  One Be a  Moral Relativist and Still Believe in the Existence of Right and Wrong?

How can one reconcile living in a country in which we believe in both absolute forms of right and wrong and yet subscribe to a belief in moral relativism?   How can one person (though not usually in the same breath) proclaim the belief that we all determine our own morality based on internal and external causes and yet condemn someone for failing to live up to certain moral standards.  Does a person not find it hypocritical to try to impose his values on others while claiming that moral judgments are relative?  At first glance, it appears as though we have a disjuncture of beliefs. 

                Yet, before we start making these people wear a crimson H on their chests to mark their hypocritical nature, we must consider the possibility that moral relativism and moral absolutism can possibly be reconciled in to one belief system.  One might be inclined to argue that something cannot both be absolute and relative.  Let us first confront the issue of definitions.  Moral absolutism is the easier starting place, as it seems to be less in dispute over what is intended by the term (though as with all alleged indisputable facts, there are those who would dispute this).  Moral absolutists believe that there is an absolute and incontrovertible existence of things that are right or wrong.  What is less clear is if all actions are able to be labeled as either right or wrong.  It would seem that picking up an empty cup and pretending to drink would not be morally right or wrong.  But something like making false accusations against a friend to benefit your own career would be viewed by most moral absolutists as undeniably wrong. 

                Moral relativists are a little harder to define.  At least three major versions exist.  The descriptive relativists simply state that there is disagreement over what morals should be held as absolute.  The meta-ethical relativist believes that there is no correct system of morality.  Still, meta-ethical relativists believe that while there is no right version of morality, there are versions that are more correct than others.   And finally, normative relativists believe there can be no true moral standards and that we should tolerate all things regardless of our personal beliefs.   According to this belief, one action is as good as another.  To a normative relativist, helping your grandmother take her medicine is no better or worse than poisoning your grandmother to expedite your inheritance (at least in relation to your personal moral choices).

                What quickly becomes evident is that depending on how we use each term (absolutism and relativism), it changes the difficulty level one faces in trying to reconcile the discrepancies between preaching toleration of different moral beliefs and yet holding some things as absolutely right or wrong.  What also become immediately obvious is that most Americans touting a belief in moral relativism are either descriptive or meta-ethical relativists.  To be a normative relativist at the same time as trying to promote moral views would be hypocritical beyond defense. 

                But if we look at descriptive or meta-ethical relativists, one can see how it is possible to plausibly argue that one could still hold certain moral standards as worth defending.  A descriptive relativist might belief that what moral values are correct is up for debate while still believing that they have found some ethical stances upon which a firm footing has been established.  And a meta-ethical relativist might believe that we cannot have one set of moral values that are labeled as the right ones while still believing he has found certain values that can be defended as better than alternative choices.

                So ultimately, it does not appear that there is an inherent hypocrisy underlying the fact that so many Americans are both moral relativists at the same time as taking stances that appear to run parallel to what would be expected from a moral absolutist.   In short, we can allow that our vision of the world is best while accepting that we might be wrong.  

                 

Why I Signed a Petition Supporting Gay Marriage

Why did I sign a petition in support of gay marriage?  The easy answer is because there is no reason that my mind can conjure up that would make doing otherwise consistent with rational thought.  There are those that would argue that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, but I ask, how will it do so?   I don’t feel like I’m going to wake up the day after gay marriage is made legal and look at my wife and think, “This whole marriage thing is a joke.  If gay people can do it, why bother.”  Others argue that marriage solely exists for the production of children.  Now, if this is truly the case, then we need to start passing laws to incriminate anyone that gets married but doesn’t have a child.  And anyone that physically cannot produce children should be banned from marriage as well.  Of course, I’m assuming that we strive for consistency in how we treat people.

Many who offer arguments against gay marriage attempt to refer back to the bible.  The bible says marriage is something that occurs between a man and a woman.  While I have no intentions of defaming the bible, it may have one or two mistakes included in its pages.  We are all aware that it claims the Sun revolves around the Earth.  Again, I’m not attacking religion. I’m just saying God may have been dictating to the wrong scribes.  Possibly, God saw Paul smiling while writing the Book of Romans.  And since God wanted him to take things more seriously he said, “Stop being so gay Paul!”  Paul, mistaking God’s use of the word gay, wrote a diatribe against homosexuality. 

Others argue that homosexuality is unnatural.  If being gay is not something that happens naturally, I must not understand the definition of naturally.  Am I truly to believe millions of people choose to complicate their lives by desiring something that society has such issues with?  I’d believe that if a handful of people claimed to be gay.  But I don’t think millions of people repress there hetero desires simply to be different or support some ‘unnatural’ counterculture.  No, I’m quite confident that being gay is simply the way one is born (stop singing Lady Gaga in your head and focus).  This is not to say that one could not find examples where someone was gay for unnatural reasons.  But the racist that says he has a black friend is no less racist for having a counterexample.  I’m simply saying most swans are white.  A green swan would not prove me wrong when using the word most. 

The only argument that gets any traction in my mind is that the presence of both a mother and a father has a positive impact on children.  But again, this argument crumbles when we consider the realities of the world.  How many children have two loving parents who are ‘present’ in their lives?  I’m not talking about the dad they see on weekends while they play Wii together.  Or the mom who asks them which outfit looks better before she goes out partying, leaving the kids with grandma or a sitter every night.  I’m talking about a father or mother that actually talks to his or her kids and is emotionally available to his or her children.  This is not even considering how many children simply have single moms (or dads) raising them independently.  And I would argue having positive male role models around these children in their daily lives (whether at church, school, or in the neighborhood) is probably better than what many kids with fathers in the house get in terms of positive role-models.  I think it would be safe to say that having loving and positive role-models around children would largely compensate for the lack of either a father or mother in the child’s life. 

Basically, it all boils down to the fact that if Dick Cheney is cool with it, then so am I!

Advertisement that Proves How Stupid Companies Think We Are

Advertisement that Proves How Stupid Companies Think We Are

In an advertisement for the Envi Wall-Mounted Heater, several claims are put forth.  Yet, nearly all of these claims are as ambiguous as saying, “A heater that may do something.”  First with this amazing heater you can save up to 50%.  I’m not a math major but I think it is safe to assume that up to 50% means anywhere from 0% to 50%.  So basically it could save you nothing.  In fact, I suppose negative 50% is not ruled out.  The only thing we know for sure is that it won’t go above 50% savings.  So, if your only hope is to not save more than 50%, this is the heater for you. 

Next the ad boldly asserts that it will cost as little as 4 cents per hour to heat an average sized room.  So, if you refuse to heat a room for less than 4 cents, again, you’ve found your heater.  But this claim leaves open the possibility that you could pay 4 cents or $4 or $400 per hour to heat an average size room.  Basically, anything above 4 cents is fair game.  This is not even taking into account that the term average sized room is by no means a common piece of terminology which all people agree upon.  I’m guessing an average sized room to Bill Gates is different than it is to me. 

Another great feature of the Envi Heater is that it is “totally silent”.   I’m thrilled to hear this because I’m sick and tired of things that are just silent.  I don’t want the absence of sound.  I want it to be so quiet that silence is just a little noisy in comparison.  And this heater can do that.  I can’t wait to have my friends come over and say, “Listen!”  And they’ll say, “We don’t hear anything.”  And I’ll say, “No, you hear less than nothing.”

But how does it work, you ask?  “It is fanless, has no moving parts yet is cool to the touch.”  I’m guessing that with this unit the only heat comes from your throbbing head after being so pissed you spent so much money on a heater that may or may not claim to do anything.  Still, it does also state that it is “stunningly beautiful.”  People may literally walk into your house and just remain motionless staring at your wall mounted heater.  Of course, one would assume that this means the heater is covered with artworks or impressive designs that merit the words “stunningly beautiful.”  In reality, this heater is just a while panel that goes on the wall. 

That’s all I have to say about that.  Now I’m going to take a stunningly beautiful deuce in the toilet that may save me up to 50% on my heating bills and could take as little as one sheet of toilet paper to wipe up after.