Libertarians and atheists assholes, a continuing study

Additional nauseating, sickening stuff.

It is sickening how many people, self-professed libertarians the lot of them, think prostitution should be legalized.  What is most shocking about this claim is that so many people think it will somehow magically limit and relegate itself to fully consenting legal adults.

Riiiiight.  So you actually think that a business that toils in the treating human beings like chattel, slaves, worse than physical property, will stop when they see a child being forced into this?

<ohh well they are consenting adults.>  And you think the propagators will pull their own leashes, enact their own checks and balances, and make sure they will not toe the line of the law?

Wrong.  What happens in reality is that you give them an inch, and they walk all over you.

Gradually, gradually breaking down the barriers of respect, decency, morals, humanity.

So many self-proclaimed libertarians and others claim that they are 100 percent in favor of consenting adults doing whatever they want, and that if anyone does not consent to doing this, this any one person can "just say no" and this is all the effort needed to keep herself (or himself) safe.  Faux-libertarians are under the impression that simply a written law on a government ledger book is all that is needed for people to act in a moral manner.  I am stunned that they honestly think rampant prostitution can blaze all within a population -- and that people will suddenly halt themselves at encountering a victim under age 18 who is forced into rape for profit by her abusive caretakers.

Libertarians pride themselves on their wisdom, their awareness of reality, on their enlightened yet supposedly practical stance on social issues, on their realistic expectations of human behavior.  They manage to conveniently ignore the fact that the above scenario never works out this way in real life and is only wishful thinking.

Let us look to other analogies that have happened.  Prohibition didn't work out that way.  Abstinence-based sex education didn't work.

This has already happened with prostitution.  First off, let us call it what it truly is.  It is not "sex trade," "sex slaves," etc. or any other euphemistic soft-sounding drivel that hides the true gruesome reality.  it is rape.  That is what it is.

Feh, typical libertarian assholery. Geez, where do I even begin. I found it quite entertaining that you equated "employment opportunity" and "freedom" to getting fucked for cash.

Big factual error: libertarianism is not the same as capitalism. Libertarians do not favor capitalism. They favor robber barons- mega-corporations torturing the middle class.

And you even made the classic libertarian move of insisting that prostitution is no different from poorly-paid manual unskilled labor. Here is the difference- one is a matter of personal morals, the other is not.

The biggest problem with libertarians (who often by pure chance tend to be atheist) is that they cannot comprehend the abstract, critical-thinking concept of morality as separate from belief in a god figure. They are very much like religious zealots in this way.

Morals have to do with logic, reasoning, empathy, compassion for fellow human beings. But like most libertarians, you think that because you do not belong to a deity, this excuses you from any moral obligation, much less seeing other human beings as anything more than sacks of bones and meat.

Sigh. I don't know why I waste my time. Libertarians are a lost cause.

Evolution Is So Overrated

I do mean "evolution" only as a talking point is overrated.  You can never have too much of evolution, as in the concept itself.

I read this somewhere on the interwebs:  "Homosexuality is pro-evolution because it allows a community to control for overpopulation."  What?  That's bullshyte.  Being homosexual does not prevent the ability to produce children.  How many people are gay and still fathered or mothered children back in the days before they realized they were gay?  Answer:  a lot of them.

When the subject of state rights for married couples is brought up, a common conservative response is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.  And the gay response is that infertile couples and elderly couples cannot produce children, so how come they are given state benefits.  I have to concur with that, that is a pretty good comeback.

But if this is true, then how exactly does being gay help with evolution?  Again, how does homosexuality align with evolution?  Answer:  it does not.  No, the most effective natural means of controlling for overpopulation is infertility.  You see both these facts mentioned everywhere, and yet gay right activists don't seem to be able to reconcile these two facts with each other.

Homosexuality is supposedly an answer to overpopulation?  This is a common gay activist answer any time anyone asks if homosexuality aligns with evolution.  But wait, what?  That's not true.  Back in ancient Greece and other long-ago cultures, they had gay people.  The earth was young and abundant, there was no lack of resources.

The point is, stop trying to justify everything in the name of evolution.  Not everything that happens on the planet is in line with evolution.  For god's sake, there are other fields of intellect.  Some examples are hormone and other protein production, art, string theory, economics, thermodynamics, classical music, and computational linguistics.  Stop knee-jerking with the stock response of "evolution."

Evolution as a sociopolitical defense argument is so overrated.

Then you have the other extreme.  There are the dumbasses, the armchair evolutionists that have probably never taken a biology class their whole entire lives, that say that evolution does not necessarily mean better, that evolution does not indicate any direction, that it does not mean improvement of any kind.

Bullshyte.  Of course it does, dummy.  That is the definition of evolution:  advancement, improvement.  Otherwise, why would we say that humans are more evolved than gorillas and other apes?  Why would we say that humans (multi-celled eukaryotes) are more evolved than single-celled eukaryotes?  And that single-celled eukaryotes (complex single-celled organisms such as protists) are more evolved than prokaryotes (bacteria, which are comparatively simple)?  Why would we say that evolutionary advantage gives some species fitness, better chance of survival, over other species?

Why would there be such a concept as an evolutionary advantage in the first place? If evolution were directionless and aimless, then it would just be called "mutations."

Then again, thinking about it a little more, I realize that I should not waste time being offended by their claims that evolution does not exist, or whatever.  In pretty much every sphere of discussion, you always see a few weird fringe, unhinged, screws-loose lunatics that are usually ill-informed.

You see violent crime apologists.  You see gang apologists.  You see rape apologists.  You have people that insist that all street drugs should be legalized.  You have people that insist that marriage is just a relationship that has been co-opted by the government and that they don't need a piece of paper to declare their love.  Or that marriage as an institution should be done away with completely.  You have people that insist that animals, as in non-humans, should be represented in government and in the democratic process.  Yes, I really, honestly have read this, but only on the internets, thank goodness.  So, ah well, just another day on the interwebz.

Getting back to "evolution" and how it is overrated.  Biology means biology -- the physical and natural science that can be observed conclusively and unequivocally.  Gene mutations result in a genotype of an organism different from the genotype that was present in the previous generation.  The genotype will be expressed as the phenotype, which is essentially what the organism looks like, although they do not always match exactly.  Phenotype is the physical growth and appearance of an organism -- protein structure, cell structure, organs, tissues, conditions of all parts (e.g., kidney function, any heart conditions).

Phenotype might not turn out exactly how the genotype had dictated in the current generation.  But with the genotype having changed due to a mutation, the groundwork is there for possible expression of the genotype as phenotype in future generations.  Let me repeat, all of that is evolutionary *biology.*

The people that call themselves evolutionary biologists but are in fact trying to apply biological principles to psychological whimsy, need to stop calling themselves scientists.

It is pure speculation that it is possible to justify abstract, odd, often baffling behaviors by using biological explanations.  There is no biological imperative for personalities, for character flaws, for unwanted behaviors.  Biology does not make anyone consciously *do* anything.  It does not manifest itself as actions taking place through time.

If you want to study biology, then study biology.  Don't study fantasy, legends, and opinions and then try to apply biological principles to them.  Those are fields that are by definition subject to flawed human interpretation.

You are not an evolutionist.  Get over it.

Still Standing... ? Oh, Boy

Um... am I the only one in the country who is still Team Obama?

Seminal and Controversial Part 2

Back when I was in high school___

Looking back on it now, I now realize that this in fact revealed several things about the girls.  They would be ready and willing to accept responsibility for their decisions and their actions.  Because of this, they would most likely be better decision makers, they would weigh the pros and cons, the possible risks of making a major decision such as starting to sleep with someone.  This is not an action they would take lightly or regard casually.

They have a hell of a lot more respect for their bodies than the typical liberal.  They do not see or accept themselves as mere toilets for males' semen to be deposited, semen waste disposal systems.

They already knew about themselves that were they to discover that they were pregnant, they knew they would keep that child, and they would regard it as a child, a human being, and not just a lump of lifeless flesh to be discarded.  This means that they know they would love their child, even if it did come about from a casual encounter.

As for the boys, I realize now that they only parroted out loud the notion that they are pro-abortion due to r-- to make it more palatable for people.  For what sane human being___

But their internal motivations most likely did not concur with this at all.  Far from it.  Their real motivations were that if they accidentally got someone pregnant form casual sex, they could just throw some dollar bills at her the way you would with a stripper or a pros, and bark at her to go take care of it.  What the hell would that mean, though?  They don't want to be saddled with the responsibility of accepting the consequences of their decision, of their actions, order her to "go take care of it."

---------
Both sides, liberals and conservatives, have quite a lot in common in that the overall arching theme is that they are extremely misogynistic.  They do not give a flying sh9t at all about the woman who is carrying the fetus.

Both sides are relentless in insisting that a fetus is completely a separate entity, entirely disengaged from the women who is carrying said fetus.  Both sides do not give a shyte about the feelings, emotions, considerations, thinking, contemplating, mulling over that the woman would have to do who is carrying that fetus.

That’s right.  Make no mistake.  Both sides constantly try to hammer this message into the public’s collective skull.  Extreme cons and extreme libs say that a fetus is one hundred percent a complete separate entity from the mother.  This is even though biologically and medically, this is complete bullshyte.

And extreme libs say the exact same thing.  The only difference in their opinion is the details.  I will go into the details.  Cons think that a fetus is completely disengaged from the mother.  And libs think that a mother is completely disengaged from the fetus.

That's what libs say all the time, isn't it?  A piece of trash, it’s a nonliving clump of dead cells, it’s nothing more than a tumor, it's a dirty disgusting little secret.  Really, liberals?  So a part of a woman’s body is a piece of trash?  Something to throw away and pretend like it never existed?  Something to casually toss out of one's mind?

What if she has bonded emotionally with it?  What if she regards it as her child?

Extreme liberals like to champion themselves as defenders of women's rights.  And they constantly lambast extreme right zealot Christian conservatives as being abusive and oppressive toward women.  The latter part of which is true.  But as for the former -- in reality liberals are every bit as misogynistic and violent as any conservatives that they denounce.

Neither side seems to realize that it is her body, therefore it is her decision.  It is her body, she values it, she cherishes it, she treasures it.  Therefore it is her right and her choice not to feel obligated to go through with this procedure just to appease some selfish unrealistic liberals.

It is just inconceivable to me that neither side is able to reconcile the fetus' existence with the mother.  I mean, DUH.  Nature intended it that way.  The extreme right's ignorance of science is no excuse.  The extreme left's ignorance of human emotion, feeling, and parent-child bonding is no excuse.

Whenever a conservative woman starts screeching, “A child is a gift from God!  It is a blessed and sacred gift!”  And then of course the liberals start knee-jerking, "oh she's a brainwashed weak wummin brainwashed by the evil religious menfolk."

I don’t think it's that simple.  I think what is really going on is that the conservative is not great at articulating her thoughts.  And twofold -- the libs suck at reading between the lines.  What the conservative woman is really saying is,

"How dare you try to tell me that killing my child is supposed to empower me? Who the f- do you think you are?  It's part of MY body, therefore don’t you dare tell me that cutting out dilation and curettage, scraping out a part of MY body is the right thing to do just because YOU say so."

I think that this is what is really going on here.  Instinctively, it just feels wrong.  Gut instinct.  But they are not quite able to elucidate on specifically whhhyyy it feels wrong.  They reach for the nearest explanation within their grasp.  God said so.  Which is fine.  They made a well-founded equivalency between God's law and moral human law of instinct.  It makes sense.

New Food Guide

On an unrelated note, food guidelines issued by the United States Department of Agriculture are very fluid, ever-changing, constantly being updated as new information presents itself on biomedicine and health.

First off, apparently they had some sort of food wheel back in 1946.
Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20111110-OC-AMW-0012_-_Flickr_-_USDAgov.jpg

Then we had the four food groups, back in the eighties.  This is the first food guide to which I had been introduced way back in the day.
Source:  evidently the only image available anywhere on the internets.
http://robertleehaller.com/foodgroups.htm

Then there was the food pyramid with blocks, in 1992.
Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif

Then there was the food pyramid with convergent blades.

Then there was the food pyramid with convergent blades with a dude running up the staircase on the side, in 2005.
Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MyPyramidFood.svg

Now we have harkened upon the next frontier.:
The food yin yang.  This symbolizes the delicate harmony and balance of everything.  A tangible equilibrium.

Look, we already have some demonstrative diagrams.
Sources:  internet.

Note:  This was a parody post.  The USDA has not actually released any "food yin yang" dietary guidelines.  Do not take this as medical or nutritional advice.