Please help my family piece our lives back together after the back-to-back devastating Japan quakes and chip in if you can. Any amount helps.
You can click HERE to go to the GoFundMe campaign page if you want to donate.
You can also share this link:
Every little act of kindness helps.
The entire universe “works” like something that has been PROJECTED. Only a thinking mind could make the world the way it is. Once I read in a comment on the internet that we should look at the bodies of men and women, at the way they perfectly match together to understand that a thinking mind created them. I totally agree with this. We just need to keep our eyes open and see… Einstein said that a bit of science brings you away from God, but a lot of science brings you to God.
My daughter constantly surprises me with her open mindedness, compassion, and ability to empathize with others simply by logically deducing things.
She remembers something her pre-school teacher told her over two years ago. In class, they discussed whether it was polite to laugh at a person who had a deformity or didn’t have legs. The example was an amputee who was missing their legs.
The teacher said, you don’t know why they lost their legs. Maybe they were born without them. Maybe they fought in a war and lost them. But how do you think they’d feel if you started laughing at them?
The children unanimously agreed that they person with no legs would feel bad. Maybe they’d cry. And they all realized it would be really mean to laugh at that person. After all, if they got hurt, and lost their legs, they would feel bad if people laughed at them too.
Flash forward to today (which is actually yesterday). And we’re flipping randomly through the television channels and suddenly we stop on one and — bam! — two lesbian women are kissing.
My daughter looks at me and I look at her. I had no idea such a scene was going to be on. But she turns to me and says, “Daddy, why are those women kissing each other?”
I said, “Because they love each other.”
“Are they gay?” she asked me.
“Yes,” I replied.
“That’s good!” she chirped.
I raised my eyebrow. Curious as to how she reached that conclusion so quickly, I probed a bit. “Why do you think so?”
“Well, everyone’s different!” she exclaims. “Some boys like girls. And some girls like boys. And sometimes girls like girls. And boys like boys.”
“That’s true,” I say.
“Are there lots of gay people?” she asks me.
“Yeah,” I inform her. “I suppose there are.”
“If there’s lots, how come we don’t see many?” she asked me in all sincerity.
“Well, because some people are mean to them… and they think being gay is somehow wrong… so they make fun of them or say something to hurt their feelings. So gay people sometimes try to keep their personal lives private.”
“That’s not right!” she gasps. Growing serious, she informs me, “There’s nothing wrong with being gay, Daddy. They’re just different! And my teacher said not to laugh at people who are different than us or be mean, because it will hurt their feelings.”
She then told me the story about her teacher giving the example of the amputee and not laughing at those with physical deformities.
Needless to say, she is one hundred percent correct. And I am amazed at how well she empathizes with others and how loving she is innately. And I have to think — if a kid can come to this conclusion on their own, and logically deduce that mistreating others or being unfair to them, being mean, is the same across the board — then to think otherwise means you had to have been taught it.
Here’s the thing. If you think being gay is gross, or wrong, or morally reprehensible, odds are your parents FAILED to teach you how to properly empathize with those who are different than yourself.
If you teach your children that gayness is something to be shameful about, or that it’s gross, or wrong, or morally reprehensible then all you have done is teach them how to hate.
And YOU have FAILED to teach them compassion and empathy and how to be loving towards others.
My six year old figured it out on her own. If a six year old can do that, then there’s no excuse why a grown adult should ever have a problem with homosexuals and homosexuality. The same goes for the trans community.
If you have any sort of problem with these fine groups of people — the problem is YOU.
You’re the problem.
And it’s your problem you need to fix.
Think about that for a moment. Think about how my six year old girl just schooled homophobes and transphobes and anyone whose ever been an asshole towards those different than themselves. If a six year old can best you in ethics and morality, then you should feel ashamed and embarrassed for yourself.
As for those who don’t feel ashamed for treating others poorly, well, then you’re no better than those assholes who make fun of amputees for simply being amputees. And, personally, I wouldn’t want my daughter hanging out with you or your brainwashed-to-hate kids.
Think about that for a moment.
If somebody asked me what do I think about the abuse of women in any given context, and I merely say, well just follow the law of the land — wherein that law of the land allows for (or maybe even calls for) the abuse of women, then it cannot be said that I expressly am against the mistreatment and abuse of women. Rather, I’d be for it — because I support those laws.
Which is why we can deduce that Jesus implicitly supported slavery.
The function is the action the object performs to accomplish a specific goal or purpose. This purpose is part of the object’s functionality, but if you find a new use for the object, or use the object in a way it wasn’t designed for but accomplishes some new goal or purpose, then you’ve manipulated it’s functionality.
Functionality is simply the range of operations an object has — or in this case how well it serves a particular purpose vs. some other.
This is clearly false.
Let me repeat that…
THE GUN IS A LETHAL WEAPON DESIGNED TO KILL.
It’s function is to shoot out a projectile at a lethal velocity. The goal, in the case of this being a lethal device, is to kill a person (or other living thing). That is the purpose of a gun!
Let me repeat that…
The purpose of a gun is to kill.
So, yes, the gun does actually kill people. This is the design and function of a gun.
Now, this implies that a tool or device can serve other purposes because other functionalities can be implemented. And this is fine. After all, many tools have a full range of operations they can perform. But rarely is it ever the case that the primary operation, its main function, it completely ignored and replaced with some lower order functionality.
A gun collector might say it is a work of art and collect them for their technical simplicity, historical importance, and aesthetic appeal. A single mother with children might say it is simply a means of self-defense. A hunter might say it is merely a tool to catch his dinner with. A competitive marksman might say it’s just a tool he uses in his sport of choice.
Just because a gun can be used for catching food, or for sport, or for defense doesn’t mean that a gun’s initial design, function, or purpose — mainly the very reason for its existence — is to be a defensive tool, a sporting apparatus, or a way to procure food. It’s not.
A gun is and was designed for one thing and one thing only. To be a lethal weapon. It was designed with to serve the purpose of killing. It is a tool of war, designed for war, and its purpose and function is to kill. And in times of peace, I am continually surprised by how many people seem to overlook this basic fact about guns.
You see, people have merely found a new operation a hammer can perform, in this case, bashing in a skull. But that doesn’t mean that the original purpose of a hammer is to bash in skulls. It’s not.
Hammers are, and weren’t, designed with the intent of harming people. They were designed with the intent of being able to help the carpenter build more efficiently. But where a gun is concerned, the fact of the matter is, a gun was designed to kill. That’s the whole purpose of a gun. That’s what makes it a gun.
Although, as I’ve suggested, things are rather quite different when it comes to guns, because the gun has one primary purpose and function that cannot simply be overlooked — and this is the fact that the primary purpose of the weapon is to be lethal.
A car or a hammer might become lethal when used improperly. But a gun is lethal when used properly!
That by itself suggests that a gun, at least in part, shares culpability with its user.
You might wonder, how can I say this in such a cavalier fashion? This is because the purpose of a gun lines up directly with the purpose of the object’s user — in this case: to kill.
Statistically, a hammer works just as well, if not better for killing someone than a gun.
I mean, why even bother owning a gun is hammers are just as lethal? And the answer is one people tend not to like to admit. Hammers aren’t designed to kill. Hammers don’t kill efficiently enough. Hammers can’t maximize killing. A gun does and can. Because that’s it’s purpose.
Thus the intent behind owning a lethal weapon is revealed, people want a gun precisely because it is a lethal weapon, and precisely because they might have to kill someone with it. Apart from the few instances we find for owning a gun other than killing, in which most people do not even meet the basic criteria of (seriously, how many of us are expert marksmen?) then it’s perfectly clear that people own guns specifically for the intent to kill someone if need be. Or maybe even deliberately. And that’s sort of the problem, you see?
And gun owners know this. They know that this is why owning a gun sends a clearer message of “back off” and “don’t mess with me” to a bad guy more clearly than a hammer does. If you pull out a hammer in a Mexican standoff, people will give you peculiar looks just before they shoot you dead. As the saying goes, “You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” You see, in a gun fight, it is expected that somebody, either you or the other guy, will be killed. Best to bring the tool best suited for the job.
So, as you can see, the “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” logic is wrong. It is BOTH the gun and the user’s fault, because the gun’s design, function, and purpose is to be a lethal killing device, and that is exactly how the user intents to use it. We can’t divorce this fact from the reason for the gun’s existence without becoming completely illogical when talking about guns.
That is the design, function, and purpose of a car!
This becomes even more self evident when you factor into the equation modern automated self-driving cars. There is really no other purpose to a car than this: transporting you places.
Guns do, in fact, kill people. That’s what they’re for!
I follow the fascinating and beautiful transgender woman Kat Blaque, a YouTube personality who is sharper than Occam’s razor and who fights for trans-people’s rights. I watch her videos and read her Facebook posts, but tend to lurk in the shadows. Until recently. Recently I felt I needed to comment on something she had posted, although I’m entirely aware that my comments may be unpopular if not controversial. Allow me to explain.
The joke was actually aimed at something Caitlyn Jenner did, playing on the old sexist stereotype about CIS women being bad drivers. Yes. It’s offensive sure. It’s also a pretty smart joke. He was able to make it both offensive to trans and cis women at the same time. Such is the nature of epater humor. Something most Americans don’t quite get and blurt outrage and indignation at without fully understanding why the joke works — even as it is still completely offensive. But feel free to be offended. That’s your right, just as it is his to offend.
Additionally, we have to keep in mind that Caitlyn Jenner is only famous because of who she was in the past. There’s simply NO OTHER reason for her fame. So to ignore her past persona is to miss the point that this person cannot be dead-named in quite the same manner because they were ALREADY famous, and then famously made a public transformation, and was famously open about it. If Caitlyn Jenner was anybody else prior to her transformation, then yes, dead-naming her would be a terrible thing to do. But everyone knows who she was already. The only thing dead-naming her could to is be offensive to Caitlyn Jenner.
Now before you jump down my throat and say I’m defending the act of dead-naming, again, that’s not what I’m doing. If you think I am, then you’ll have to answer a very straight forward question for me. Who is Caitlyn Jenner and why should I care? And you cannot refer to her past persona or the fact she’s trans. Now tell me again who she is and why I should care?
That’s what I thought. Crickets.
So the set up is necessary. And since Gervais was going after Jenner, and only Jenner, and he was getting paid to roast her to the full extent of his British wit, that’s exactly what he did.
Well, wait. Maybe he’s set a bad example? Possibly. But I doubt it. The context is a celebrity roast. You can only say he’s setting a bad example by taking what he did out of context. I was told that other people who admire Ricky might think it’s okay to dead-name trans people because he did so on national television. But if that’s what you think then my point above was probably not clear enough. He didn’t dead-name other trans people — he did it to Caitlyn Jenner. He’s not after the trans community as so many have said in their irrationally driven emotional knee jerk to his offensiveness. He’s after Caitlyn Jenner, period. And everyone else gets to be equally offended, because Gervais is an equal opportunity offender. If you don’t get that. I’m sorry.
So why is this not a defense for his dead-naming her you might ask? After several paragraphs of explaining why it made sense, how can I still say with a straight face that I’m not defending what he did or saying it is acceptable? Because I’m not making a moral argument for what he did. Period. I’m saying what Gervais did carries a different weight and a different meaning because it was in a different context with different rules. And this needs to be taken into consideration, otherwise all you have are appeals to emotion and thus no case — because as I said, you have every right to be offended.
“There are so many Caitlyn Jenner jokes you can make without dead naming her or attacking her because she’s trans.”
The question is: does Gervais’s humor actively disparage the transgender community and, if it does, was it done intentionally to hurt trans people or was it done unintentionally — one might say accidentally? Is there a difference? I think Caitlyn Jenner might say there is. After all, there has to be a difference between accidental manslaughter via fatal reckless driving and accidental death by vehicular accident, otherwise she’d be in jail for killing someone. So trust me when I say, there’s a difference.
Then again, maybe Gervais is equally ignorant. That doesn’t make what he did any less offensive, but it certainly helps put everything into context. Yet as I have tried to emphasize, distinguishing where the comedian’s personality ends and the comedy begins is not always so clear cut as to say — that guy is transphobic because he made a transphobic joke. I’m afraid it’s never as easy as that whenever the varieties of humor and comedy are concerned. You see, humor is a complicated thing.
And this Golden Globes debacle is complicated precisely because Gervais is a comedian. If he was anything else, if he was a xenophobic, racist, hate spewing politician like Donald Trump, for example, then it would be easier to pinpoint his personal ideologies and say — here is a despicable human being. But comedians are less transparent precisely because they use risque and controversial material all of the time, to subvert, challenge, provoke, offend, and challenge us. They make into punchlines that which would come off as extraordinarily unacceptable in any other context.
Case in point, one of my favorite comedians, Louis C.K., once made a joke about letting people rape his dead corpse. I’m sure some were offended by the very notion of it. Others were probably disgusted. They’d have every right to be. But it didn’t prevent people from laughing. Of course, this controversial joke doesn’t imply that Louis C.K. is into necrophilia or that he supports rape in any form. He’s a comedian. It’s a joke. Everyone laughed.
“I should like to know which is worse: to be ravished a hundred times by pirates, and have a buttock cut off, and run the gauntlet of the Bulgarians, and be flogged and hanged in an auto-da-fe, and be dissected, and have to row in a galley — in short, to undergo all the miseries we have each of us suffered — or simply to sit here and do nothing?’That is a hard question,’ said Candide.”
“A lady of honor may be raped once, but it strengthens her virtue.” (Voltaire, Candide, Chapter 7)
Kat Blaque had me shamed off her FB page for making a rational argument of why there might be exceptions to “dead-naming” when it comes to high profile celebrities that were famous prior to their conversion to trans person.
I made the conscious decision to unfollow Kat Blaque. She’s smart, but also angry. Perhaps too angry, since all she does is rant, and rant, and rant. And, I get it. She has a lot to be angry about. Life is unfair. And particularly, life is more unfair to a select group of minorities than others.
But one thing I cannot tolerate is rudeness. And Kat Blaque is rude. Condescending. And she would rather call you a transphobe then put an inkling of rational thought behind what you’re saying. Don’t get me wrong. She’s smart and eloquent. But I think she gives herself too much credit.
Maybe we all do.
At any rate, I made the choice to unfollow her — as I was tired of all the negativity and everyone who doesn’t agree with her automatically falling into the camp of enemy — which I have no time for.
That said, I was able to make 3 new trans friends from the exchanges I’ve had on there and who are all excellent, fun, and interesting people who I hope to get to know better in the coming days. So it wasn’t all for not — and that’s a good thing.
|Click to enlarge|
To preface this: It’s my response to an absurd meme that shows a bunch of animals on the endangered animal watch list and then, next to these majestic animals, shows a pregnant woman with text that reads something like “It is legal to kill the babies of only one of these animals.”
Of course, they don’t do this. Because it’s not about finding common ground. It’s about being on the side or righteousness and thwarting evil — and all the foot soldiers working for Satan — like me apparently, according to this guys reaction.
Regardless, rather than waste rational argument and logic on a person like this, which would simply have gone in one ear and out the other, I decided to have a bit of fun instead. I still abide by netiquette rules of fair play though, so if you feel it’s borderline trolling, you can rest assured, it’s of the very polite variety. At any rate, I thought I’d share with you the conversation because it was so goddamn entertaining.