In Defense Of 'Crazy' Stay At Home Moms

We all know the trope of the 'crazy' suburban mom; you know,  the one who screams at her kids and husband all day despite being medicated to the gills with pharmacological agents and vodka coolers and while I have done my share of sneering at them to myself and others (shitty behaviour around kids is hard not to sneer at) I have been thinking a lot about these women and what might be at the root of the problem and I think that "they're just crazy" isn't fair and what really may be going on is totally not their fault but actually the fault of the way we engineered post-industrialization/post-agricultural societies.

If you travel back in time to say 50,000 years ago, what was the life of a mother like? Were they alone, separated into individual houses, or together as a community, dealing with everyone's' kids all at once?

It was the latter.

Assuming we all agree on this point, (and how can't we; I'm always right after all, right C-man? fuma!) what can we take from this? Well, it logically follows that evolving to raise kids in a community would lead women of future generations to basically needing said communities for support and ultimately, optimal mental health. So, separating into houses all along a street and living in their own little worlds with their kids and hubbies (when home from work) could possibly be setting them up for failure. Living contrary to ones' nature is a recipe for mental illness, right?

If we think about the nature of women, are they more oriented towards being solitary or in groups? I think we all know the answer. They are definitely wired towards being hive minded. Men are generally the more solitary creatures. So, in the interest of fairness here, is it really any wonder that once they are separated into individual homes alone with their kid(s) all day that they go "crazy?" They are living without the social support networks they evolved to need!

I always think/talk about how the way this culture is engineered is really bad for men, but I am starting to consider the possibility that it's bad for women as well. It's bad for all of us, I think. One day I'll stop being so lazy and really dig into this idea and post a detailed, cogent, thought out piece about it. I really think there's a lot about the way we are living that we need to rethink. I'm just so lazy.....damn culture's fault!

In Defense Of 'Crazy' Stay At Home Moms

We all know the trope of the 'crazy' suburban mom; you know,  the one who screams at her kids and husband all day despite being medicated to the gills with pharmacological agents and vodka coolers and while I have done my share of sneering at them to myself and others (shitty behaviour around kids is hard not to sneer at) I have been thinking a lot about these women and what might be at the root of the problem and I think that "they're just crazy" isn't fair and what really may be going on is totally not their fault but actually the fault of the way we engineered post-industrialization/post-agricultural societies.

If you travel back in time to say 50,000 years ago, what was the life of a mother like? Were they alone, separated into individual houses, or together as a community, dealing with everyone's' kids all at once?

It was the latter.

Assuming we all agree on this point, (and how can't we; I'm always right after all, right C-man? fuma!) what can we take from this? Well, it logically follows that evolving to raise kids in a community would lead women of future generations to basically needing said communities for support and ultimately, optimal mental health. So, separating into houses all along a street and living in their own little worlds with their kids and hubbies (when home from work) could possibly be setting them up for failure. Living contrary to ones' nature is a recipe for mental illness, right?

If we think about the nature of women, are they more oriented towards being solitary or in groups? I think we all know the answer. They are definitely wired towards being hive minded. Men are generally the more solitary creatures. So, in the interest of fairness here, is it really any wonder that once they are separated into individual homes alone with their kid(s) all day that they go "crazy?" They are living without the social support networks they evolved to need!

I always think/talk about how the way this culture is engineered is really bad for men, but I am starting to consider the possibility that it's bad for women as well. It's bad for all of us, I think. One day I'll stop being so lazy and really dig into this idea and post a detailed, cogent, thought out piece about it. I really think there's a lot about the way we are living that we need to rethink. I'm just so lazy.....damn culture's fault!

"Full of Evolution"

Wow, all of that evolution must have been pretty graphic and intense. Link

Irrationality Takes a Hit AND Three Big (at least to me) Scientific Discoveries Reported On Reality Day

Irrationality Takes a Hit AND Three Big (at least to me) Scientific Discoveries Reported On Reality Day

May 22^nd, 2011 is a special date. Anyone reading this likely knows why, so I'll spare you the elongated diatribe and say yay for Reality Day and down with paranoid ignorance, irrationality, fear mongering and pseudoscience. See, not only were the christians wrong (again) (and yes, it was specific sects, not all of them, I know) about the rapture, end of the world, yadayada, but on this awesome day known as Reality Day (as in, you're still here, welcome to reality, pal) science offers three MORE blows to specific assertions put forth by specific subsets of the religious community. Specifically, I am referring to assertions regarding mammalian brain size, contrarian positions regarding the expansion of the universe and dark energy, and lastly, contrarian positions regarding the idea of complexity arising out of simplicity without the guidance of some sentient intelligence.

So, what were these three reported findings?

Answering Creationist Questions

Answering Some Creationist Questions

These questions were derived from:

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans

Sister Wives: What's the Big Fucking Deal? I Issue a Challenge to those against polygamy:

Sister Wives: What's the Big Fucking Deal?

So there's this show on TLC called Sister Wives, which I was not aware of until about 10 minutes ago. For those who do not know, it is a 'reality' show documenting/fictionalizing (you know how 'reality' shows go....) the lives of 5 adults and 13 children. The 5 adults are a man named Kody, and his four wives, and the thirteen children are, well, their children.

Yes, the show is about polygamists. How this is possible when polygamy is illegal in the U.S., I don't know, but it's happening (happened?) (not sure if it's still on or not). The guy is married to four women and the four marriages have thus far produced 13 children.

Ray Comfort: Comfortably Inept and Vacuous

Note: This blog post is full of swearing and ad hominem attacks. It's a rant as much as it is a serious post, so be warned.

Let's take some recent Ray Comfort quotes and see how much fail is contained within, shall we?

Quote One:

Evolution has no explanation for man's beginning. Some of its believers think that perhaps there was a big bang, but they don't know where the materials came from for it to take place. They don't know what was in the beginning, but they are certain that there was no God. They believe the scientific absurdity that life rose out of non-life. It was simply a case of evolution-did-it.

Wow, literally every sentence can be deconstructed, and the results of it won't be favourable for Mr. Comfort. Let's begin:

Evolution has no explanation for man's beginning.

Congratulations, retard. You have managed to point out the fact that a theory that deals with a particular subject matter has no explanatory power when it comes to a completely different subject. Jesus fucking Christ, your stupidity knows no bounds. I mean, really, you might as well have just stated that the Germ Theory of Disease says nothing about the concept of Love. Throw away those vaccines and medicines, people!! They cannot teach you how to love!

Some of its believers think that perhaps there was a big bang, but they don't know where the materials came from for it to take place.

Some people who like cars also like motorcycles, but they don't know how to build one.

(Btw, no one thinks that perhaps there was a big bang. We KNOW there was.) As for not knowing "where the materials came from for it to take place," you're getting dangerously close to doing the classic argument from ignorance bit, but you wouldn't stoop that low, would you?

They don't know what was in the beginning, but they are certain that there was no God.  

You are so fucking stupid it hurts. You keep conflating acceptance of evolutionary theory with atheism. They're NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING, and NEITHER IS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE OTHER, you insipid, insidious, stupid, cretinous liitle man.

And, btw, atheists aren't generally claiming certainty. I know someone who is, though: YOU.

They believe the scientific absurdity that life rose out of non-life.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES HAS YOUR STUPID ASS BEEN CORRECTED ON THIS SHIT? You continually mix up evolutionary theory, big bang cosmology, and abiogenesis. Seriously, what the fuck? Life arising from non life, which, by the way, can and does happen (aka, it's a FACT) is the discipline of abiogenesis. It has NOTHING to do with evolution. You need to stop conflating the three things, because it results in you setting up constant strawmen, although you still fail in taking even them down. Everything you say revelas more ignorance. Jesus Christ man, I'm half your age. Aren't you fucking embarassed?

It was simply a case of evolution-did-it.



The depth of the irony present in this statement is truly mindbending. Forget the conflation of the theories (again), forget the strawman statement, the ignorance, and the attempts to poison the well. Do you not see that, besides the fact of all that, and the fact that you're wrong (and evolution is a FACT) YOU are the one with the position that can be surmised in such a manner. YOU'RE the one with a position that provides a total non-answer, despite its illusions to the contrary. Check it, asshole:

It was simply a case of god-did-it.

Quote 2:

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with science. It's simply a pseudo-science of an unproven theory, that gives man temporary license to act like an animal.

What in the blue FUCK does "a pseudo-science of an unproven theory" mean? Jesus Motherfucking Christ on a Golden Unicycle!!!!!! That is literally painful to read. How fucking embarassing. What you meant to say, nitwit, is "Evolutionary theory is not science. It is psuedoscience." Of course, you'd still be sadly, laughably, painfully fucking wrong, but at least you'd have made sense, at least grammatically. A "pseudo-science of an unproven theory" wow. Fucking moron.

As for the last bit, I don't even know from where that nonsense is derived, but a) we ARE animals, you stupid tit, and b) if someone accepted the theory of evoultion and it gave them license to "act like an animal," why would it be temporary? Do they stop accepting the theory after a while? Does the license turn into a pumpkin at the end of the night? You can't even get your strawmen and red herrings right.

Quote 3:

In truth, Albert Einstein was no different than most of us when it comes to a belief in God. He was what the Bible calls, an "idolater." He had his own conception of God. He made a god in his own image and was in transgression of the First and the Second of the Ten Commandments. "You shall have no other gods before Me," and "You shall not make yourself a graven image," are not confined to physically shaping a stone or wooden god. The Commandments include a god shaped in the mind.

*Sigh*

Hey, turdboy, come here. Ya, you, Comfort. Come hither, let me whisper into your hairy ear:

"EINSTEIN DID NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD YOU STUPID FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

When Einstein used the word god, he was describing the majesty of the natural world, the universe. He was a pantheist, meaning he was someone who DID NOT BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL, ANTHROPOMORPHIC, CREATOR GOD. He believed that the universe was all that existed, and it was to be regarded with the deepest of reverences.

Do you pride yourself on being factually incorrect in every fucking thing you say? Fucking hell I hate you. You're a lying, scheming, scamming, disngenuous spreader of ignorance and smug stupidity. You're doing a great disservice to humanity, and if I was in charge, you wouldn't be respected. You'd be on fucking trial for fraud. Then you'd be convicted and forced to return every penny you scammed from gullible people before I sent your ass to the slammer, where you'd find out the real meaning behind the word hell.

Asshole.

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism

From wiki (link above):

Anthropocentrism is either the belief that humans are the central and most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[1] The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures.

I think of anthropocentrism when I have discussions with theists regarding evolution. There are a number of traits that exist (like intellect, speed, strength, climbing ability, climate adaptability, etc), and we are the best, for all intents and purposes, at some of them, but lacking in others. These traits allow different species to adapt and excell in different ways. There's no right or wrong. There's no superior or inferior. It's all about adaptation, propagation, and survival.

Yet people hold our specific attributes to such a high regard, and really, I find that to be nothing but anthropocentrism. I don't see the justification for the view that we are superior. Our intellect is as useful to us as is the ability to play dead, pose as a log, camoflouge oneself like chameleons do, etc to other species. Yet people state that we're so superior, and they use intellect, the thing that we happen to possess (convenient, much?), as the indicator of this.

To me, this is just a self serving viwepoint, borne of a pre-existing idea, and supported by taking one attribute from a field of many equally useful (in the right circumstances) ones and arbitrarily proclaiming that particular attribute to be of the utmost importance or usefulness. And why is this determination made? How is it supported? Why? Because we possess that trait!!! Isn't that just wonderfully circular?

It's circular, it's self serving. It's anthropocentric.

At least in my view. Feel free to disagree (or heap praise upon me!).

Answering Creationist Q?s (answersingenesis + middletownbiblechurch)

These questions were derived from:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans

Questions in bold black, answers in bold red.

1) Lets say we did evolve from ape...why did we need to evolve? We have no fur, cant climb trees, aren't as fast and cant really survive in the jungle areas too long...It seems like we devolved in a bunch of ways?

First of all: COMMON ANCESTRY!!!!



All animals evolve, not just humans. As for needing to evolve, we don't need to. Evolution is a natural occurrence that must naturally occur in a system of genetic life that involves mutation and variance. Devolved? We're the most dominant species on the planet. Why do you assume things like speed, fur and climbing trees to be the endpoint(s) of evolution? Here's a hint, there is no goal of evolution. The traits that best enable the propagation of a species live on (natural selection). That's it.

2) why is it that humans can basically eat ANYTHING, including apes....and apes are strictly plant life?

Apes are omnivores.


3) Since a species is commonly defined as a group that can interbreed, it seems like fossils could never be identified to the species level because we can't observe how they interbreed. How do scientists determine what species a fossil is if it looks similar to another fossil but is a different size or slightly different shape? When scientists disagree with the classification of a fossil, who decides where it belongs?

What you described is called morphology. The answer to the question, at least in part, is DNA.


4) The human nose has a prominent bridge and an elongated tip which is lacking in the apes, and man's arms are very short in comparison to the arms of monkeys and apes. The arms of apes hang down to the ground and like its legs, are used for transportation...quick movement & climbing...another de-evolution?

See answer 1. Stop thinking of evolution as though it has an endpoint.


5) Human babies are far more helpless and dependent on their parents than any of the infants of apes and monkeys...What's up with that? Baby apes can move and climb very well only after a few weeks.



The fetal stage in humans is not complete at birth, that's why. Our brains/skulls get too large, so we are born earlier to compensate. Otherwise, we couldn't make it out of the birth canal.



6) If it is inaccurate to say that humans evolved from apes, but instead we should say all apes and humans have a common ancestor, what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape?



Okay, so if you know this, why did you phrase it differently in the beginning? Anyways, why do you equate looking like something with being that something, yet earlier you stated that fossil's can look similar to others fossils? Your question makes no sense. You say we descended from an ancestor that we have in common with apes, yet what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape? That's inconsistent. You're not actually saying what was it, but rather, what did it look like. You are making the vague implication that if it looked like an ape, it must have been an ape? Huh? Do you even know what you are asking here?

Anyways, isn't it quite obvious? You'd assume that they looked like a cross between humans and the other great apes to whom they gave rise.


7) Why is it that only apes evolved like we have? Why is it that we are the only ones that can split the atom, create gorgeous symphonies and 'I Have a Dream' Speeches, map & conquer the galaxy? It seems like only man is free to make real choices, and it's not like we are the only smart ones...Animals are free to do what they are instinctively programmed to do or what they have been trained to do. Men can make plans and decisions and choose a course of action....but how did we evolve to be THIS smart and THIS free?


Why is it that only cheetah evolved like they have? Why is it that they are the only ones that can run so fast? It seems like only cheetahs can run so fast. Cheetahs can run SOOO fast....but how did they evolve to be THIS fast?


Do you get my point? I hope so. Anyways, the answer is simple: prefrontal/frontal cortex.

8) Why is it that only men are able to train and tame other animals?

We're not. Ants can herd aphids, although, even if this were true, and I actually thought it was until I read this online, I don't see how that would be difficult to understand, or contrary to evolution. Presumably, it would boil down to intelligence, would it not? That's how I was going to answer it, until I read the ant thing. We have evolved to possess great (relatively) intelligence.

Newsflash for Creationists!!!

Evolution isn't True?

If you have an issue with Evolutionary Theory, read the text on the following picture (click to zoom in), and answer the question at the bottom of it:

(And by the way, to head off any possible ''it's just a theory!!'' responses, the meaning of the word 'theory' in science is much different than the colloquial usage of the term:

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So, which one is it? As it says, if you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which will it be?