Did I Just Have An "A-Ha" Moment Or Am I A Misogynist?

I just powered up Mario style (I'll just leave it at that) and I started really thinking about stuff when a thought struck me and I want to share it here and ask if I am on to something or have actually crossed a line and become an actual misogynist.

Basically, in a lot of domestic violence cases, the violence is both ways. I am assuming we agree that in most cases, the man who does hit the woman first does so not literally for no reason (like, woman these eggs are overcooked *bam*); it's not the fucking 1850's, alright? It's usually during an argument. Heated argument. And what do women do during arguments? Insult. Demean. Chastise. Belittle. Provoke. Threaten. Mock.

Insult. Demean. Chastise. Belittle. Provoke. Threaten. Mock.......wait, if a man did that to a woman in their relationship, wouldn't people say that man was an emotional abuser? So isn't what these women are doing actually emotional abuse? Now, you might say that hitting is not justified as a response. I mean, it's HITTING, right? The thing is though, and this where I may lose people, say you slap someone in the face. What actually happens? Their face stings. They may feel afraid. Or enraged. Or ashamed. What's the person being emotionally abused feeling? They may feel afraid. Or enraged. Or ashamed.*

The only real difference is the stinging face, right? So you can do all that shit to people and it's okay, just don't make their face sting?

But how do you stop someone who won't stop emotionally abusing you? What if it went on and on and on? They followed you from room to room? Just refusing to leave you alone. Why can't you make their face hurt for a minute to make them stop? Are you just supposed to take it? Leave your own house? And why is she being portrayed as an innocent victim? That sounds to me like discrimination in favour of women to me.

I'm not saying it's okay to hit a wom- oh wait, I guess I am?

Am I?

Fuck...

But am I right?

*There`s a difference between thinking things out/asking question and defending or promoting something, so save the over the top angry comments/accusations, etc. I've never hit a female and I really couldn't see myself doing so despite what I am saying. I'm not much of a fan of hitting anybody; what I am a fan of however, is dissecting common ideas and logic testing them.

Rape Culture Does Not Exist

Rape culture isn't real. There, I said it. It's an incorrect idea perpetrated by radical feminists and has no factual basis in reality. It traces right back to a self-reporting study by Mary Koss for Ms Magazine that gave us the bogus 1 in 4 figures (ie 1 in 4 women will be raped) feminists continue to cite. The truth is, 73% of the women she identified as victims did not believe they’d been raped or sexually assaulted. Additionally, 43% of the people she identified as victims went on to date their “attackers”. She used definitions of rape that were not even remotely rape but then included them all under the umbrella of rape. 

The results of a similar survey for men using overly loose definitions of rape as used in the study cited above which was released a while back found that almost half of school-aged boys and men were raped (95% of their rapists being women). Now, of course, this is utter nonsense, but what people need to understand is that this is the EXACT type of nonsense that gave us the 1 in 4 women stat. Overly loose definitions of rape. 

What we do know is that rape is NOT a gendered crime. Men and women are raped in the US about equally, and quite possibly is the case throughout western society. Most people do not know this because Koss and other feminists saw to it to have the CDC and FBI classify male rape victims into a completely different category of sexual violence. Therefore male victims of rape aren't included in govt rape statistics. When you include male victims of rape that the govt lists in the "forced to penetrate" category, the figures are almost identical.

One of the most annoying way the statistics are used to mislead is the stats they quote with respect to the number of accusations that result in prosecution. They will say something like "only 2 in 9 are prosecuted!!!" and then draw the conclusion that the cops and attorneys don't take rape that seriously. That drives me NUTS. Rape, by its very nature, is often a 'he said she said' type of crime aka my word against yours crime (two people alone in a room, etc). Those types of crimes are hard to prosecute because of the need to establish guilt beyond a measure of reasonable doubt. These cases are often hard to win in court so they don't go forward. It's not sexism against women, it's a consequence of the nature of the crime. Women don't need to educate men. What they need is to think more rationally.

Now, because of this "rape culture" bs, comedians are being targeted. Feminists say that rape jokes add to the "rape culture" but have absolutely zero evidence that a single rape has ever been committed because someone saw a comedy show, heard a rape joke and went "yeah, rape is pretty cool- I'ma go rape someone tonight." The people who rape are ALREADY WILLING TO RAPE. Jokes make no difference whatsoever. The other part of it that I despise is the "my feelings are hurt, someone do something about it" aspect of it, as well as the fact that people are laughing and enjoying a show, so who the fuck made you the authority and the one to stop the show because you have an inner boo boo (usually not even on behalf of yourself but perceived victims who are probably not even in attendance). If you don't like the show, LEAVE. Who on science's green earth taught you that it's reasonable to demand a group of people stop enjoying their chosen entertainment because it makes you feel funny inside?

It's time we stop unfairly villianizing men in this society.

Sources:

Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, “The Making of an Epidemic,” Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993

Neil Gilbert, “Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Data and Acquaintance Rape,” Current Controversies in Family Violence eds.

Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, 1993, pp.120-132

Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. Note: According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html
http://www.avoiceformen.com/allbulletins/honey-badger-radio-mary-koss-and-the-american-rape-machine/
http://www.saveservices.org/2014/03/e-lert-hidden-victims-men-who-are-forced-to-penetrate/
http://www.rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape
http://time.com/37337/nearly-half-of-young-men-say-theyve-had-unwanted-sex/
http://www.genderratic.com/p/2798/male-disposability-mary-p-koss-and-influencing-a-government-entity-to-erase-male-victims-of-rape/

Debate Tips #1: Rebuttal To Being "Entitled To My Opinion"

Two people engaged in a debate. One is challenging the opinion of the other. They go back and forth, point by point. Until it happens:

"Well, I'm entitled to my opinion."

When people say this, I think they're saying that they have the right to hold the opinion, content of the opinion notwithstanding. If so, I agree but that is basically a nonsense statement. I have the right to hop on one foot I suppose, but if someone points out that walking normally is more efficient and I, instead of engaging them on that point just say "Well, that may be but I have the right to hop on one foot" I might be right but I am also babbling and missing the point.

Address the actual content of the opinion, not your right to hold it.

That is all.

Alcohol, Sex, Consent, Rape and Contradictions

So as you all know there's been a lot of talk about drunk sex lately and it seems that there's a push to consider consensual sex while drunk to actually be sex under duress. Which, unless I am missing something here, logically places alcohol on equal footing with "roofies."

Assuming we accept that premise, I would go on to point out that girls don't really believe this themselves. An overstatement? Perhaps, but on some level at least, they make the distinction between alcohol and roofies without realizing it themselves. I say this because they:

a) Aren't asking for alcohol to stop being served/sold without a prescription ("roofies" are prescription only, not sold at bars but, following their logic, if it has the same effect, what's the difference?)

b) Willingly avail themselves of this free flowing alcohol (but not ingesting "roofies")

Am I wrong in thinking that perhaps this is indicative of an underlying contradiction in this new way of thinking?

P.S. I've certainly heard this said before but it bears repeating: If they aren't responsible for having sex while intoxicated then why are people who drive drunk responsible for their actions? Which is it, ladies? Do drunk people have agency over themselves and their own actions or no? Or maybe an even better one is a guy cheating while drunk. Are they prepared to let him off the hook? Oh, they aren't? Okay, let's see them explain that without a major contradiction or invoking special pleading.

EDIT:  I want to make clear right now that in NO WAY would I advocate someone plying someone with booze, getting them blackout drunk and having sex with them. I am merely talking about the usual "go out, have 3-4 drinks, end up with someone" thing that is now coming under fire. 

Lyoto Machida Got Robbed. MMA Judging Is Seriously Flawed

As soon as the third round ended at UFC 163's Phil Davis vs Lyoto Machida fight I felt certain that Davis was going to get the nod, and sure enough he did. In an ideal world, that would have been because Davis had clearly won the fight. In the world we inhabit, it was because, well, because he succeeded with 2 out of his 10 takedown attempts. 

Yes, you read that right. 

Phil Davis, an accomplished wrestler, was 20% successful at his main thing- the takedown. That means that Machida was 80% successful at doing his part- stuffing said takedowns. Well, then Davis must have significantly outstruck Machida on the feet, right? Nope. I think he landed a few more shots, but his accuracy was much worse than Machida's and Machida landed a lot more 'significant' strikes. All Davis did was land 2 takedowns, both near the end of the rounds in which they occurred. Machida, on the other hand, stopped an accomplished wrestler from taking him down 8 out of 10 times. That means He kept the fight where HE wanted it, and while he was there he did more damage. Yet for some reason, the judges don't seem to allocate points for stopping a takedown, which is INSANE. A takedown attempt is a fighter's attempt to establish Octagon control (placing the fight where you want it; one of the scoring criteria used by the inept judges). If the fighter in question is successful, the gain points (and rightfully so). However, if the opposing fighter fights against the takedown and is successful, he gets.....no credit? 

How the fuck is that fair, reasonable, or logical? 

Machida won that fight and I believe the UFC should award him a title fight. 

On Ghosts and Hauntings (the hottest extra-curricular activity in the ghostiverse)

Poll a random group of one hundred people and you'll probably find at least thirty who believe in ghosts/spirits. A further ten of those people will likely believe in hauntings. I do not count myself a member of this group of people. There are just too many problems with the idea for me to subscribe to it (aside from the obvious lack of evidence). For one thing, this planet has been home to roughly a thousand trillion deaths over billions of years. Yes, billions, not six thousand. Sorry, Jesus freaks. Yet there seem to be maybe a hundred and twenty seven ghosts in existence and for some reason most of them lived in the Victorian era. Where are the Neanderthal ghosts? The Viking ghosts? Or more importantly, the dinosaur ghosts? I mean, what, only humans come back as ghosts? Humans from the Victorian era? If ghosts were real  they would be everywhere.

Not only would they be everywhere, if they had the ability to haunt life would be absolutely fucking unbearable because everything would be haunted.

Get it together people. You can rest easy tonight, okay? There are no ghost pterodactyls flying around your bed.

Theist PWND on Gamefaqs

Note: This is an older post that was sitting in my drafts.

Theist PWND on Gamefaqs.

In a discussion on the inclusion of JFK in the upcoming Call of Duty game (something I knew/know nothing about, since I don't follow the games, but this discussion was being had by others and I chimed in) the following ridiculous, frustrating, saddening, angering exchange (more like an ownage session) (with someone I have never spoken to online prior to this) was had:

Thousands Of Gods....One Thing in Common....

Anyone else find it odd that there are apparently thousands of gods in existence, each with differing ideologies, origins, desires and goals, yet the one thing they all seem to share in common with 100% inclusiveness is an inclination to be completely undetectable...

hhhmmmmm......

You Have Proof of Your God's Existence? Okay, Let's Hear It.

Believe in a god? Have proof of said god's existence? I'd like to hear it.

Anyone who happens to be reading this and think they have proof of the existence of their god of choice, let me have it. 

However, if I may, before you reveal it, I'd like to set 3 rules.

1) Arguments from incredulity are fallacious and I will not accept them.  For example, saying "Look at the world around you. sIt's too "perfect." It had to be created, therefore, there's obviously a God." This is a logical fallacy. Just because you cannot fathom any other explanation does not mean there isn't one. All you are really saying is "I don't know and I am inserting "god." There are MANY other possible explanations. Some more plausible than others. So please refrain from using this as "proof." I will not accept it.

2) These also are not valid and will not be accepted as "proof:"

-You can't prove there's not a god!

-Without god, people have no reason to be moral.

The first one is just stupid burden shifting (and still not proof anyways) and the scond one is just a bare assertion fallacy (and wrong) (and still not proof).

3) For people who believe in the "one true god....." whatever proof you do have, ask yourself, could that same proof not be utilized by someone else who believes in a different god? If so, how can it be valid for you and not them? Which means......by your logic, their god must exist as well. For example, if you say "God speaks to me" and this is your proof, fine. However, if someone who believes in one of the 3799 other propsed gods says that as well, would that not be proof that their god also exists?

Okay, so if you think you have proof of god's existence and it does not consist of one of the above disqualified lines of reasoning, please do share it! Keep in mind, however, that this is for people who say they actually have proof, not for those who say it's based on faith.

Typical Discussion with a Christian

I received two private messages on youtube regarding the first ever video I ever uploaded to the site. Said video is based on the following blog post:

Eternal Torment and a Just God

The thesis of said blog post basically being that the christian god punishes every sin in the same way, even though (apparently) not all sins are equal. I ask in the video/blog if this is fair, and whether or not we are more just than god, since "in the criminal justice system, differing crimes are given differing sentences. But not in hell. An atheist gets the same treatment as a serial rapist or a murderer. Hell, under this system, I would get the same punishment as Hitler. Is this fair? Is this behaviour indicitave of an omnibenevolent being?'

Is there free will in heaven?

Is there free will in heaven?

If yes:

Are there bad deeds done in heaven?

If no, why not? Is it that no one chooses to sin because heaven is so amazingly awesome that they have no need/desire to commit evil? If there is free will in heaven, but no one acts on it (to do sin/bad works) because heaven is so amazing, then that means god has the ability to create a perfect place devoid of evil, without violating our free will. If that's the case, why was Earth not created in such a way, or what's the point of Earth at all?

If yes, bad deeds are done in heaven, then doesn't that mean heaven is, well, no longer heavenly? Some might say that the difference would still be that in heaven, you're with god, but if god is omnipresent, he's with you on Earth anyways (usually in people's aortic valves, if the christians are correct) which means that heaven is no different than Earth (unless of course you do not attribute omnipresence to god). Also, what happens to those people who do sin in heaven? Do they get sent to hell?

If no, there is no free will in heaven, then that means god has no qualms with us being devoid of free will, which means the free will defense for the problem of evil goes bye bye, since god clearly has no problem violating our free will.

Thoughts? Am I missing something?

Awesome Letter Pertaining to Homosexuality and Biblical Morality (Comments Added by Yours Truly)

This is a widely circulated letter addressed to Laura Schlessinger, a conservative radio host and outspoken bigot (from what I gather. I'm not familiar with her but the few comments attributed to her that I have read were rather bigoted and idiotic).

Note: It is not at all clear whether or not this was actually written to Laura Schlessinger (the purported Dr. Laura in question) nor is it widely known who the original author was. Still, it's great stuff, so read on (assuming of course you have not come across this at one point or another).

Note 2: I have added a few italicized comments in brackets throughout.

Dear Dr. Laura:

(A Critique Of) Arguments for God and the Universe

There are some seemingly well constructed arguments for the existence of god utilized by apologists in their quest to rationalize their religious beliefs. The three classic apologist arguments are the:

1) Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)

-Basically, there exists order and complexity within nature, and order and complexity, ie, design, is contingent upon a mind. This mind is god.

2) Cosmological Argument

-Basically, finite entities must have a cause. You cannot have an infinite causal loop/chain, in which something created something created something ad infinitum. There must be a first cause. This first cause, by definition, is not contingent and is not an effect.

3) Ontological Argument

-Basically, and laughably, it asserts, a priori, that if you can conceive of the greatest possible entity, then said entity must exist, since existence is superior to nonexistence.

9 Reasons Why We Don't Believe in Religion

Here are a collection of 9 reasons to help the religious understand why we don't buy into their belief systems. This is neither all encompassing nor to be taken as some finalized mission statement. I wouldn't consider this the most compelling list I could write, but it hits a fair number of things and does a few of them decently.

Atheism: My Story

In this blog I will share with you my story. Why I am an atheist (although the answer is rather simple), how those around me handle(d) it, and the beliefs of those I associate with. I will frame it as an interview (why....I dunno). So, let's begin, shall we?

My Views (more like ramblings) on Abortion

Here are my thoughts on abortion. As you will see, my position is not solidifed (the general slant of it is, the details are not) and the issue is, for me, a difficult one, but not for the usual reasons. The difficulty for me lies in the fact that formulating an opinion which is not borne (pun intended?) of assertions based on arbitrary delineations is rather difficult.

~

The Insanity of Swearing

The Insanity of Swearing

I would like to discuss swearing/cursing/the use of expletives, so listen up, you friggin pieces of crap.

...Did I just swear at you?

Well, did I?

John Shimkus, the (Possible) Next Chairman of the U.S. Congressional Committee on Energy and Environment Does Not Accept Global Warming. He Accepts the Bible.

Okay, it's rant time. Here's an article from The Star.com detailing the anti global warming stance held by Republican (of couse) U.S. Representative John Shimkus, and his reasons for holding an antiscientific position (article first, then the rant):

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/888472--god-will-save-us-from-climate-change-u-s-representative

U.S. Representative John Shimkus, possible future chairman of the Congressional committee that deals with energy and its attendant environmental concerns, believes that climate change should not concern us since God has already promised not to destroy the Earth.

Two New Youtube Videos Up: Death Metal Baby and 2 Questions Re: Heaven

Enjoy....or not :)

Ongoing Debate With Rhology, the Christian Apologist: Special Pleading and Hypocrisy?

EDIT: Here is his response to this post.  I will be responding to it in time. It's headache inducing, so I may have to do it bit by bit ;)

This is a response to THIS POST, which itself was a response to MY RESPONSE to THIS POST by the user Rhology. That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

This might be starting to get confusing. Just follow the links, it's not nearly as confusing as it may sound. Basically, this is the thrid or fourth round in an ongoing debate of sorts with the Christian Apologist Rhology from the RHOBLOGY BLOG.

This response is definitely the most heated of what has thus far been a very civil, but strident, debate. I think I may have just opened the gates to some anger and perhaps even insults, although this was certainly not my intention. Sometimes, to be honest, you have to ruffle some feathers. Regular readers of mine may be scratching their heads at this point, wondering if perhaps I have sustained a head injury or something, as I am known for my fiestiness and proclivity to 'let someone have it' if they, in my estimation, deserve it. I only make these disclaimers in this case because this is someone who, up until this particular comment of his that I am responding to, was open and honest, with a respectful demeanor. Well.....I am afaid the demeanor may have remained intact, but the intellectual honesty seems to have taken the night off.....Let's get into it, shall we?