The Horrors of Facebook Debate

I would very dearly love to hear some responses from my readers on this latest bit of godawful stupidity I picked up from a Facebook debate. (I kindly withhold the author's name and relation to myself so he might retain some small shred of dignity. I am far too nice.) This was written in response to a post my brother Nate wrote in which he (Nate) argued in favor of gay marriage.

Nate, as you have asked so kindly I will join your little debate here, but understand that my thoughts are strictly how I see things and are not based on my personal beliefs.

To my understanding, there is a vast difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Let's compare the two.

HETEROSEXUAL - These types of relationships, if not abused, usually do not lead to either one of the partners have any form of STD. And, if both the male and female entities of the relationship are virgins, their potential offspring has a very small chance of being born with any disease. Sure various children are born with defects, but I'd attribute that more to the mother's incompetence when caring the child. Obviously, there are certain practices that must be done and there are also certain habits that must be broken so as to have a healthy baby (i.e. not smoking while carrying the child or stop drinking alcohol while carrying the child). Also, there are various reasons why a woman might be physically incapable of bearing children and thus it is better if said type of person refrains from trying to have a child (best way is birth control). To continue on my main point, heterosexual relationships are, for the most part, pleasing to both individuals. This, again, is if the relationship and sexual desires are not abused. With wise decision making on both the male and the female ends of the spectrum, abortion can be avoided. If the child is unwanted by the parents for whatever reason, is it not better to give the child a chance at life by way of giving it up for adoption?

HOMOSEXUAL - These types of relationships have pretty much one sole purpose. To give and receive sexually stimulated pleasure. Most male companions whether virgin or not will end up contracting an STD at some point in their string of relationships. Think about it logically for a second. What is the purpose of having reproductive organs? TO reproduce, obviously. They have no other real practical use save for waste the body produces. Though, I guess female relationships are a bit different. If both females do not have an STD there is very little chance of them contracting one. But, again, logically their reproductive organs were not meant for what they do. This is why I think that many people, conservative Christian or not are opposed to homosexual relationships. There is just no logical reason why two homosexuals should be given the same marital rights as a heterosexual. Despite whatever their idea of 'love' is.

In addition, you must remember that one of the reasons there is so much political tension on the subjects of gay rights and abortion is because of the values this country was founded on. To name one in particular (that happens to be found on every piece of our currency), the words "In God We Trust". Gays wanting equal rights and women wanting abortions can expect to face major opposition when they step outside of the values that this nation has held onto since it's conception. It just makes sense.

I know my response has some "What the _____ is he talking about" moments. I'd be happy to try and clarify if you happen to find one.

For the record, my response was:

Dear [Name Withheld]:

Your entire reply is one non sequitur after another. You gesture at a variety of piecemeal arguments but you fail to flesh out a single, coherent thesis. I would ask you to clarify, but your failure to effectively communicate your position is more likely due to your very tenuous grasp of the issue than it is to your poor writing skills. I warmly recommend that you acquaint yourself with the sophisticated versions of the arguments you attempted to replicate, as well some elementary argumentation strategies, before you make any further pass at persuasive writing.

Yours Truly,

Kai

In retrospect, I was far too easy on him.

Insect of the Week: Crowned Slug Caterpillar

Some day, I'll actually update this segment weekly. Let me distract you from my utter failure as a blogger with a pretty caterpillar:


The species is Isa textula. According to BugGuide, "Larvae are often found on oak, but also eat leaves of many other trees including maple, cherry, basswood, elm, and beech." You'd think such a weird, alien caterpillar would pupate into something interesting. But no, the adult looks like this:


Admittedly, it looks like every other dead moth you've ever found on your porch.

Guest Post: Ex-Gay Christian Shares Story

This is a guest post by my friend Olivia. She graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in May 2009 with her bachelor's degree in Computational Biology. She is currently pursuing a M.S. in Genetic Epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis, and will be starting medical school in the fall. I asked Olivia to write a guest post for my blog because I wanted to present an alternate point of view from someone whom I admire and respect, despite our disagreements.

From Olivia:

Kai is one of my best friends. In my opinion he’s also a great writer and has plenty of insightful opinions to share with the world so when he asked me to guest write for his blog I was excited and a bit intimidated at the same time. I am not a good writer. I also had no clue what to write about. Luckily for me, Kai’s Facebook wall dropped a pretty good topic in my lap. A couple of weeks ago Kai made the following comment about a web post about an ex-gay Christian’s story:

“Ex-gay Christian shares his story. This is one of the saddest things I've ever read. Hey, next generation: let's not teach our kids to hate themselves for being gay, kay?”

First I want to break down what Kai said. “This is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read.” I’m not sure if Kai meant that the whole story was sad or if the quote was meant to be more narrowly focused on the latter half (“let’s not teach our kids to hate themselves for being gay, kay?”). I don’t think the whole story is sad, but if Kai’s only problem with the story is that the church either purposefully or accidentally teaches kids to hate themselves for being gay, I would completely agree that that is a sad thing. Even if we were to agree that being gay (defined as being attracted to people of the same biological sex) is a sin (which I don’t believe), teaching people to hate themselves for it would not be a healthy or loving way to steer them away from being gay. That said, I’d like to take a closer look at this ex-gay Christian’s story.

To summarize the story (in case you don’t have the patience to actually read the article… it is kind of long), Adam says that he had his first sexual experience with a boy when he was in middle school around the same time that he started looking at pornography. In high school he had a consensual sexual relationship with his cheerleading coach. During his senior year in high school he started to more openly go to gay clubs and he started taking ecstasy. He had issues with his self-image and felt as though no one wanted to be his friend. After graduating high school he had some male Christian friends for the first time and started seeing a councilor. He says that he felt a lot of anger and grief over his loss of innocence but that his life didn’t change much at that point. He tried living as a “straight” male in college for 4 years but he still had romantic feelings for men. After college he landed a great job that paid him well, he found a Christian boyfriend, they went to clubs together and did drugs together. He says that he had everything he thought he wanted but he was miserable. One morning after being out at the clubs all night, Adam and his boyfriend walk into a church for funzies. The pastor of the church walks up to them after the service to say hi and Adam’s boyfriend just blurts out “we just came from the club.” The pastor responds, “I’m glad you’re here.”

Adam says that this was his turning point. He describes the next two years as being the most painful and freeing years of his life during which he stripped “away old habits and desires and [submitted] to the Lord.” He feels that many of his feelings for men were due to long standing problems in his relationship with his father and rejection from boys his age when he was young. Besides returning to the church, Adam also quit doing drugs during those two years. He says that he prayed that God would take away his feelings for other men and that he has slowly seen a change in that area of his life. He says that he is beginning to see women in a different, greater, purer, more beautiful way; though he does still struggle with attraction to men. He says that his goal is to give resources that were valuable to him to other male Christians struggling with attraction to men.I know that summary might look long, but if you take a look at the original article you’ll be grateful.

Okay, so now to simplify things even more, here’s what I see when I read this. Boy has bad relationship with father and other kids. Boy starts using porn and having sexual relationships when he is around the age of 12 or 13. Gym teacher has an illegal and probably psychologically damaging relationship with boy. Boy parties and does illegal damaging drugs. Boy tries to be straight but still ends up with a boyfriend, doing drugs, and feeling miserable. Boy decides to try submitting his life to God, goes through hell, but comes out the other side off of drugs, mending his relationship with his father, and being more confident in himself.

Not once in his story did he say anything about pressure or condemnation from the Christian community. Not once in his story did he mention anyone telling him that he was a bad person. In my opinion, this boy’s problems were not rooted in his feelings towards other men. It was rooted in the fact that he didn’t know how much he was worth as a human being and he didn’t have a clear and healthy picture of his own identity. After “submitting to God” he even admits that his feelings for men aren’t completely gone, yet his quality of life is so much better for many other obvious reasons. I don’t think this is tragic. It’s something to be joyful about.

It might sound cliché because it’s said over and over again, but it is said so often because it is TRUE. Money alone doesn’t satisfy. Someone else’s affections whether homosexual or heterosexual will not satisfy either if you don’t know who you are and you don’t have a good sense of self-worth. It is well recognized that abuse of drugs and alcohol generally began as a way of escaping from something that is difficult. The fact that he doesn’t need that anymore is a good thing. Also, can anyone really say that it is appropriate for a 12 or 13 year old boy to be looking at pornography? Even for adults, pornography can be very damaging to the real relationships that person has. I realize that not every ex-gay or currently gay Christian’s story is not like Adam’s story. I also understand that Adam may be leaving details out of the story. But as for what is presented here, I think we should celebrate rather than being sad about the changes that have occurred in Adam’s life.

Philosophy of Mind: Still Useless

In January, I posted my initial thoughts about the Philosophy of Mind class I'm taking this semester. I wrote that I thought it was utter bullshit and has no applicability to studies in neurology, psychology, etc. It is now three months later, and my opinion has not changed. Let me illustrate some of my objections.

I recently submitted a paper in that class on the topic of intentionality (I did very well on the paper, in case you think that I'm just griping about a bad grade). Intentional states are mental states that are about something; for example, if I'm thinking about grass, then I am taking an intentional stance toward grass. We read a paper in the class by John Haugeland, who distinguishes between two types of intentionality. He defines derivative intentionality as the "intentionality that something has only by virtue of having it conferred on it by something else that already has it". Words and sentences, for example, have intentionality only insofar as it is conferred upon them by the intentionality of the reader's thoughts. In contrast to derivative intentionality, Haugeland believes there is something that he calls original intentionality. He does not offer a positive account for original intentionality, stating only that "[it] is any intentionality that is not derivative".

In my paper, I argued that, from a pragmatic standpoint, the distinction between derivative and original intentionality is entirely useless. Say we build a computer that runs very sophisticated algorithms. If we're trying to predict how the computer will react to certain information, we could memorize those algorithms and know exactly what output we're going to receive. Or we could treat the computer as if it were a rational human being, and base our predictions on what it is rational for the computer to do. Clearly, the second option is far more practical than the first, even though the predictions are probably not going to be as accurate. So what does it matter that the machine only has derivative intentionality (whatever that is)? We should act as though it has original intentionality, because practically, it doesn't matter what kind of intentionality it actually has.

When I asked that question in my paper, the professor wrote in the margins: "Because we want to know what intentionality consists in?" I understand the substance of his objection: just because something isn't useful doesn't mean that it's not worth studying. But here's the idea that I was trying to get across: arguing about things like intentionality pretty much comes down to making up random shit, and then making up more random shit to substantiate the original random shit, and then condemning other people for not believing the same random shit that you believe. There can be no right or wrong in an argument of this type. It pretty much comes down to personal taste and what seems likely to you as an individual. There isn't any knowing "what intentionality consists in".

It bothers me profoundly that a bunch of liberal arts students think that they can decide difficult questions about the mind by sitting around and talking about it. Don't get me wrong--I think that pure thought (sans experiments, etc.) can solve a lot of important problems. The entire field of mathematics is based on pure thought. But if you're talking about something like the mind, something that can only be understood through how it interacts with the physical environment, then you need to get yourself to a goddamn laboratory and do some goddamn experiments. But I suppose that's just my scientism assuming a pre-theoretical substrate of experience.*

*For similar reasons as those I just explained, I happen to think that continental philosophy is a completely worthless field of study. My background is in analytic philosophy, which is entirely different. Please don't mistake all philosophers for those contie kids. Thank you.

Forced to Freedom?

Quebec Premier Jean Charest has just drafted legislation that would make it illegal for Muslim women to wear a niqab if they want access to public services. The Premier says the measure will be taken for the reasons of "identification, security, and communication". On the face of it, this may seem like a legitimate concern, but other Canadian territories have successfully found ways to accommodate women in niqabs:

Women can go into an interview room and have an identification photo taken by a female staff member. Or, a picture can be taken in a private location by a female agent. "If there is not a private interview room or a private location, a screen can be erected in order to obscure the photo subject from public view," Bhardwaj said.

And, in the Toronto area, health-care appointments can be made after hours, a system that will soon be extended across the province and will include health cards and driver's licences.

This type of accommodation doesn't seem outrageous to me, so I need further arguments before I support the ban. The other issue the Premier brings up is gender equality:

On Wednesday, St-Pierre said Quebec was a "world leader" when it comes to gender equality, and with Bill 94, "we prove it once again."

Okay, my readers should know by now that I am all about gender equality. But I don't think this is the way to go about it, especially after reading a recent article in my school's newspaper where a Muslim alumna defended the use of the niqab.

Belgasem, 22, was one of several members of the Muslim Student Association who explained to a group of about 60 attendees that most Muslim women cover themselves by choice as a part of their religious beliefs and not as a ploy by men to subjugate them.

...

Reading passages from the Qur’an, Ben-masa called Islam one of the least restrictive religions of women’s freedoms. Before Islam, he said, women in many regions were viewed as property. They were not allowed to inherit the possessions of deceased loved ones, a right that is granted to Muslim women.

The walls of the room were covered posters with pro-Muslim. One said, “According to the Qur’an, men and women are equal before God; women are not blamed for violating the ‘forbidden tree,’” a reference to the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

Alumna Huma Badi said that she willingly follows the Hijab, and that it causes people to see her with respect and not just as a sexual object.

Personally, the headscarf thing isn't something I would promote. But then again, I'm not a Muslim. It's just a piece of cloth to me. But if what we're condemning is sex-specific clothing, then the argument makes no sense at all. Every culture has sex-specific clothing. Should we start banning American women from wearing dresses? Men from wearing ties? You might argue that there's a difference because most of our fashion "laws" aren't based on religious beliefs about the role of men and women, but this argument is obviously false. Dresses have historically been a modesty covering for women. That's not the case now, but if we discard the historic significance, then there goes the argument against the niqabs, too. Modern Muslim women (at least some) obviously don't think the niqab demeans them. If anything, it seems to bolster their self-esteem. Who are we to tell them they're wrong?

She-Males Will Hold Children Hostage in the Classroom!!

Stupid, bigoted websites are all over the internet. But sometimes, they are just so horrible and ignorant that I have to rant about them. Take this specimen: http://www.endahurtskids.com/

For those of you who don't know, ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) is a bill before Congress right now that would make it illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Many states already have laws that prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation, and a small handful (including Colorado!) also extend protection to gender identity. The passage of this bill would make such discrimination illegal across all 50 states. Cool, right?

Well, according to the Traditional Values Coalition, the authors of the above website:

President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are quietly rushing through legislation (H.R. 3017 & S. 1584) that would actually bring cross-dressing teachers into your child’s classroom. Under the so-called, Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), your children will be trapped in classes taught by drag queens and transgender activists. Students will be indoctrinated that “alternative lifestyles” are no different than traditional lifestyles. Young children will be forced to learn about bizarre sexual fetishes – and you will have no say in the matter.

First of all, dumbass, cross-dressers are not transgender people. Many trans people are perceived as either gay or cross-dressing early in their transition, but they are in fact wearing clothing that is congruent with their gender identity. Cross-dressers, for a variety of reasons, wear clothing associated with the gender they do NOT identify with. Many straight men, for example, wear women's lingerie as a sexual fetish or just because they like the feel of silk against their crotch. They are not, and would not identify as, transgender.

Second, many drag queens are actually cisgender males who engage in cross-dressing as a performance art. If you're trying to ban all drag queens from teaching in the classroom, you're going to need to do a lot more than stop ENDA. You're going to need to keep tabs on every single male teacher and make sure he doesn't do naughty things in his off-time. Also, drag queens aren't going to show up to class in drag. Duh. (Unless they ARE transgender, and then it's not drag.)

As for indoctrinating your children: I think it is both a moral imperative and in the best interest of the state to teach children to respect their fellow human beings. No one is going to try to force them to be gay or transgender. Also, young children will be forced to learn about bizarre sexual fetishes? Wtf??! First, transgenderism is not a sexual fetish (although many people fetishize trans people--but people will fetishize anything). Second, trans teachers aren't going to start bringing in strap-ons and ball-gags and demonstrating their use. Who the hell would be okay with that?

Lastly, the site authors continually refer to trans people as "she-males". If you needed any further proof that they're motivated by their own fear and hatred of people who are different than they are, and not true concern for their children, this is it. There is absolutely no rational reason to oppose ENDA, so they obviously have to resort to misconstruing the issue and using offensive language. Morons.

"Easter" is not PC

[My friend Olivia and I were discussing various problems with talking to dead people. Note that Olivia is a Christian.]

me: Well, about 80% of Americans thought-talk to a Jewish zombie on a regular basis. This isn't much weirder than that.

Olivia: Jesus would have to be dead when he rose for him to be a zombie. we believe he was alive thus not a zombie

me: Look, he was dead. Then he wasn't. I say zombie.

Olivia: that's not the definition of zombie!

Olivia: I'm very disappointed in you. You don't even know what a zombie is. You watch more zombie movies than me

me: I know what a zombie is. I'm stretching the definition because I don't discriminate against people of other deadness status.

Olivia: that's kind of hard when the definition of zombie includes deadness status

me: Bigot.

Debate rule #1: When you can't win with logic alone, resort to unfounded accusations and loaded language! I learned this from all the lovely people who engage in Facebook debates. Thanks, guys!

Insect of the Week: Insects covered in dew

My day has totally been made by this amazing photograph:


This is a picture of a sleeping blue dragonfly, covered in dew. There are many more great high-res images over at the Daily Mail. I really, really want a print of some these.

(Via The Daily Dish)