René Descartes is who that phrase is largely contributed to. Essentially the translation is "I think therefore I am". I could go into near infinite detail about the essence of that phrase, but that is not my point of writing this. What I hope to achieve is to articulate the absolute critical importance of meaningful, directed, conscious thinking that is WAY outside the box. In order to illustrate that importance, I start with the How, and then deal with the Why.
How
www.ted.com seems on the surface to be a bunch of intellectuals spouting off about theoretical outcomes, but really what it is, is a place where people can be encouraged and excited to start thinking outside the box with immediate real world implications. For example I watched this video this morning:
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html
His claim that people who are alive today could realistically live for 1000 years is kinda "out there". One of those things that you just pass off and ignore as the insane ramblings of an old man who looks like he should be holding an End of the World sign on a street corner. BUT, and it is a VERY big "but", this gentleman is a respected researcher at Cambridge. You do not get to be a respected researcher at an Ivy League school by being insane.
Perhaps there is a small element of truth in his ideas. If there is a small element of truth in what he had to say, then the single most important thing for me, and every other person on the planet, to do is simply to stay alive. Live as healthy as possible so that if this possibility comes to light, you are in a physical state to take advantage of it, and not one of the people who are stuck, quite literally, in a death spiral.
Why
In very real terms, 22 minutes of my life spent watching a very "out there" person ramble on about things that seem too incredulous to be worth while has motivated me to make immediate and lasting changes to the way I live my life. This is almost like a religious epiphany. This is a way to obtain eternal life theoretically speaking. This is way beyond the empty unverifiable promises of very religion out there. This is a tangible, testable, explicit manner in which humanity in general COULD gain essentially eternal life.
I have faith in science, I grew up using the Apple IIe in grade school, I have watched and participated in the internet building around me and into the very fabric of my life to the point where functioning without it for an extended period of time would be like going back to grade 1 for remedial training... totally lacking fulfillment. I have faith in science to produce new, regular, and almost predictable innovations. I have faith that the longer I live, the longer science will be able to keep me alive. Not just alive, because seriously who wants to have time added on at the end of their life, but alive in a healthy state. I am changing my accepted dogma about life. I am breaking the mold in such a way that I am fundamentally different today than I was 24 hours ago. What exactly that means, to be perfectly honest, I don't know; however what I do know is that it is different, it is outside my expectations, outside my thoughts, outside my plans, outside of anything I have considered to be within the realm of possibility.
So was this whole rant about life eternal and the nearly insane ramblings of Aubrey de Grey? No, it was about a point. That listening to talks on www.ted.com is a sure fire way to radically change the way you think about the problems around you and the future of the world. It is an exercise in thinking WAY outside the box, and that is something that is fundamentally important to each and every person in this world, both on a personal level, and on a global level. Simply picking a random topic and listening to innovative radical thinkers talk about where things are moving, or where things should move, will motivate and drive you to live your life to the fullest by simply thinking.
René Descartes was the father of the philosophy of Dualism as it pertains to the mind. This theory of Dualism has been largely and almost uniformly discredited for many obvious reasons that I will not get into here. But perhaps there is a small kernel of truth in there that is fundamentally critical to our very existence - I think therefore I am. Never stop thinking. Never let a good idea die because others scoff at it. Could ANYONE have predicted the success of Farmville or Mafia Wars? Last I hear, Zynga was pulling in $200 million in revenue after only 2 years of operations. That data is one year old. Draw your own conclusions.
I think therefore I am.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Misattribution of Arousal
I am sitting here frantically trying to finish not one, but two assignments that I had yet to start until this morning. I finished one portion of my Social Psychology assignment and felt it was worthy of sharing with the masses. On a side note, it is seriously cruel and unusual punishment to be studying the chapter on Love and Attraction at this point in my life. Seriously, what immortal being did I piss off to deserve THAT chapter being studied NOW. In any case, I will get the point of this blog entry, my Social Psychology assignment. I am basically just doing a cut and paste from my assignment, so forgive me if it isn't in my typical "blog" writing style.
Misattribution of arousal is defined in my text as "the process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do".
In plain terms, when we encounter an unusual situation, and we are also evaluating how we feel about someone else, we have a tendancy to attribute that heightened state of arousal caused by the unusual situation to be caused by the new person we are evaluating rather than the situation itself. Whether it is being scared, excited, or even just getting heartburn it can make us think there are "sparks" on a first or second date. There are many studies that support this and if you are interested, I can point you in the right direction. Without further adu, here is the meat of my assignment.
Misattribution of arousal gave me insight into the on-going persistence of Vienna on the just completed season of the Bachelor as well as her eventually being proposed to by Jake, this year’s bachelor. As a result of learning about the misattribution of arousal, now I realize why someone who is as obviously tainted and flawed as Vienna could have been so persistent in the show and even a good indication of why she won.
On Jake’s second one-on-one date of the season, he takes Vienna to go bungee-jumping. He does so on the premise that both of them are afraid of heights and that he wants them to overcome that fear together. After some waterworks (by Jake), and rubbery legs, they jump off the bridge holding onto each other scared out of their minds. After they stopped bouncing around, they shared a pretty amazing upside down kiss, almost Spiderman style. The date progressed as expected, and it was abundantly clear that both of them were falling head over heels for each other.... Seriously Jake, Vienna over Gina? My god men are weird...
After the date, both Jake and Vienna claimed to have this special bond with each other that no other woman could equal. As it turns out they were both correct, despite Vienna’s seemingly purposeful attempts to be as horrible as possible, and Jake knowing full well what she was capable of, Jake proposed to Vienna at the end of the season. As the season progressed, everyone was left wondering why? Why Vienna? Gina, Tenley, Ali, and many more of the contestants were clearly a far better choice than evil, backstabbing, manipulating Vienna.
Learning about the misattribution of arousal, I realized that it was very likely that this was the cause of Jake’s interpretation of love. The date with Vienna was exceptionally arousing for Jake and he likely attributed that arousal to the beautiful woman hanging upside down in his arms. In effect, the results of the season were sealed the instant they jumped from that bridge, and while there were 5 more episodes and 11 other women, no one could match the level of arousal Jake obtained, not by Vienna, but from the knee-quaking heights of that bridge.
Now that I have intently watched every episode of the 2010 season of the Bachelor, and, like women all over North America, was dumbfounded every time Vienna got a rose, I have a pretty good idea that misattribution of arousal was why this choice was made over and over again. I can use this knowledge to help me in the future with my relationships. Newly re-entering the dating scene after almost 7 years of marriage, I need to make sure I steer clear of potentially arousing situations early in the relationship. Mini-golf sure seems like a lame first date, but at least it is almost certain to prevent any significant arousal in the situation that could cloud my thoughts about my feelings. Movies in general should likely be avoided, in addition to new food, or situations.
While it may seem overly paranoid to purposefully avoid exciting first or second dates, it definitely seems better than a long term relationship with a lame duck. On the flip side, if I happen to find “the one” and want to make sure I’ll get a second date maybe I should push them into traffic, just to get their heart going and make them love me even more. On second thought, maybe Mexican food would be a better choice...
P.S. If you are in my class and steal this for your assignment I will hunt you down and... think mean thoughts in your general direction. If you are my prof and wondering why my assignment came up on your Google search, it's actually me who wrote both of these.... seriously :)
Misattribution of arousal is defined in my text as "the process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do".
In plain terms, when we encounter an unusual situation, and we are also evaluating how we feel about someone else, we have a tendancy to attribute that heightened state of arousal caused by the unusual situation to be caused by the new person we are evaluating rather than the situation itself. Whether it is being scared, excited, or even just getting heartburn it can make us think there are "sparks" on a first or second date. There are many studies that support this and if you are interested, I can point you in the right direction. Without further adu, here is the meat of my assignment.
Misattribution of arousal gave me insight into the on-going persistence of Vienna on the just completed season of the Bachelor as well as her eventually being proposed to by Jake, this year’s bachelor. As a result of learning about the misattribution of arousal, now I realize why someone who is as obviously tainted and flawed as Vienna could have been so persistent in the show and even a good indication of why she won.
On Jake’s second one-on-one date of the season, he takes Vienna to go bungee-jumping. He does so on the premise that both of them are afraid of heights and that he wants them to overcome that fear together. After some waterworks (by Jake), and rubbery legs, they jump off the bridge holding onto each other scared out of their minds. After they stopped bouncing around, they shared a pretty amazing upside down kiss, almost Spiderman style. The date progressed as expected, and it was abundantly clear that both of them were falling head over heels for each other.... Seriously Jake, Vienna over Gina? My god men are weird...
After the date, both Jake and Vienna claimed to have this special bond with each other that no other woman could equal. As it turns out they were both correct, despite Vienna’s seemingly purposeful attempts to be as horrible as possible, and Jake knowing full well what she was capable of, Jake proposed to Vienna at the end of the season. As the season progressed, everyone was left wondering why? Why Vienna? Gina, Tenley, Ali, and many more of the contestants were clearly a far better choice than evil, backstabbing, manipulating Vienna.
Learning about the misattribution of arousal, I realized that it was very likely that this was the cause of Jake’s interpretation of love. The date with Vienna was exceptionally arousing for Jake and he likely attributed that arousal to the beautiful woman hanging upside down in his arms. In effect, the results of the season were sealed the instant they jumped from that bridge, and while there were 5 more episodes and 11 other women, no one could match the level of arousal Jake obtained, not by Vienna, but from the knee-quaking heights of that bridge.
Now that I have intently watched every episode of the 2010 season of the Bachelor, and, like women all over North America, was dumbfounded every time Vienna got a rose, I have a pretty good idea that misattribution of arousal was why this choice was made over and over again. I can use this knowledge to help me in the future with my relationships. Newly re-entering the dating scene after almost 7 years of marriage, I need to make sure I steer clear of potentially arousing situations early in the relationship. Mini-golf sure seems like a lame first date, but at least it is almost certain to prevent any significant arousal in the situation that could cloud my thoughts about my feelings. Movies in general should likely be avoided, in addition to new food, or situations.
While it may seem overly paranoid to purposefully avoid exciting first or second dates, it definitely seems better than a long term relationship with a lame duck. On the flip side, if I happen to find “the one” and want to make sure I’ll get a second date maybe I should push them into traffic, just to get their heart going and make them love me even more. On second thought, maybe Mexican food would be a better choice...
P.S. If you are in my class and steal this for your assignment I will hunt you down and... think mean thoughts in your general direction. If you are my prof and wondering why my assignment came up on your Google search, it's actually me who wrote both of these.... seriously :)
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Benefits and Need of Defining through Exclusion
This blog article is in response to an article posted by Mercedes on her blog Dented Blue Mercedes, of which I am an avid follower. I was just going to respond in the comments section, but my post became more of an independent article,so I am posting it here with a link in the comments of Mercedes' article. The specific article I am responding to is titled Rocky Horror and the Holy Grail, or: The problem with Defining to Exclusion.
Mercedes has argued that when marginalized communities define themselves by exclusion it creates problems and as such, from my understanding, these newly emerging communities should instead define themselves through inclusion. While on the surface that solution sounds great and would prevent conflicts like the ones Mercedes mentioned from occurring, it also explicitly prevents a clear definition of the community itself, and thus perpetuates the marginalization of various groups within the community.
To define oneself is to distinguish and articulate how you are different from others. For example, I am a transsexual woman; I am not, and never have identified as, a crossdresser. This distinction is important because to understand who I am and thus understand the concerns and issues that are relevant to me, you must understand that I am not a crossdresser. To try and define the community of which I consider myself part of ,via inclusion to encompass me and crossdressers, is to marginalize the specific concerns of both me and crossdressers alike. We are different; to fail to recognize that difference is to fail to self-identify and thus continue the marginalization. Consider what defines the LGB community, particularly, that this community encompasses all those whose sexual attraction is not confined to the opposite-sex and is thus defined by the fact that they are not heterosexual.
This exclusion criteria is important because the only way a community can be recognized as one that was marginalized and whose rights and equality is something that needs to be safeguarded, is by saying "We are different than you and as such my concerns are not always the same as your concerns". By defining and clearly articulating that difference, or rather that exclusion criteria, the community itself draws attention to the specific needs and concerns that are unique to that community.
Defining yourself through exclusion is a fundamental and necessary fact of human existence. The real concern here is that, when defining yourself through the process of exclusion, these communities must acknowledge that that exclusion does not preclude some shared interests ,and that the exclusion itself does not necessitate conflict.
Having said all that, while defining yourself via exclusion is important in having your individual needs and rights recognized and protected, it is also important to recognize that the needs and rights of other such defined communities may coincide with some of the needs of your community. In those situations, by working together as a unit you can achieve more than you can by working independently. Translated into the specific GRS situation within the trans community, having GRS reinstated is a transsexual concern, not a crossdresser concern, and trying to say differently only creates problem; however the freedom of gender identity and expression is an issue that both transsexuals and crossdressers alike can join forces and fight for. I am not arguing that GRS reenlistment does not have ramifications on the freedom of gender identity and expression. I am simply arguing that enlisting crossdresser support for GRS reenlistment only serves to inflame the differences between the two distinct communities, and perhaps a better solution would be for the transsexual community to enlist the help of the crossdressing community to enshrine the freedom of gender identity and expression, without attaching GRS reenlistment to the agenda. Then the transsexual community, buoyed by the enshrinement of gender identity and expression can have better expected outcomes on the issue of GRS reenlistment.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Coup d'état
What does a coup d'état look like?
We have all seen the news footage of these events, lets go down memory lane... Iran 1979... The Philippines 1986... Yugoslavia 2000... Argentina 2001... The Philippines again 2001... Bolivia 2003... Georgia 2003... Ukraine 2004/5... Ecuador 2005... Bolivia again 2005 (remind me not to move to Bolivia anytime soon) .... and of course Canada 2009...
WAIT, CANADA!!??!! 2009!!! My math, history, and geography all suck, but I think that means HERE and NOW. Oh crap, why didn't I see the burning cars, protesters getting shot, and the army mobilized to seize power... I slept in today, but seriously did I miss it ALL? No. Sorry. Wrong! This is Canad; that kind of stuff doesn't happen here, we do things differently than those crazy banana republics.
Well, that is correct. This is Canada and yes we do things differently here. Here our coup d'état didn't involve guns, or mass protests, or a significant change in our way of life. In fact, it was intended on never even receiving any press, but thankfully their well-laid revolutionary plans were thwarted and it did (sort-of) make the news (in a manner of speaking). Now as Canadians we must recognize what happened, understand the purposeful, malicious intent behind it and ensure it NEVER happens again.
You are now likely wondering what exactly I am talking about and possibly even wondering what my tin foil hat looks like. However, please let me explain. First of all what I am talking about first hit the news on the afternoon of Thursday Oct 8, 2009. Here is the article. Now on first read it appears to be a fairly innocent slip of the tongue that Stephen Harper responded to in a fairly harsh manner. The particularly savvy among us would recognize the shrewd political maneuverings of Harper's minority government. To be honest, my interest in the story before an hour ago was nothing more than interest in the "meta" politics involved and the cleverness at Stephan Harper's actions in the grand scheme of things. However today with this news article, the whole tone of the story changes and you start to see the toes of the coup d'état poking out from under the blanket of deception.
Here is the situation and a relative time-line:
Stephen Harper publicly denouncing the Governor General for referring to herself as the Head of State was the "kink" in her plan. Laurier LaPierre's public statement on Friday was an attempt to counter Harper's statement and try to compel "decent Canadians" to recognize the Governor General as the Head of State.
This is nothing short of scary when you consider what could have happened if nothing was said. The Governor General gets international recognition as our Head of State, through the website and other internal educational means she essentially tricks normal Canadians that she has always been the head of state, and then when it comes time that a replacement was to be appointed the trap is sprung. Who determines the next Governor General? Well the Head of State does, after considering the recommendations of the current Prime Minister. So now we have the outgoing Governor General appointing the incoming Governor General... umm the only thing that differs from a true Monarchy is the tradition of WHO gets appointed, but the reality of the situation is the same, Governor General Michaelle Jean would have started a line of Royalty.
Now you may all think to yourself "but that is impossible, we would then stop her!" But How? Legally she has the status quo of being the recognized Head of State both internally and internationally. Legally she is the Commander in Chief and is ultimately the one who holds the power to order the Canadian Military to do this, that, or the other. Constitutionally the matter would be muddied as then the distinction of exactly WHO is the Head of State is debated with Governor General Michaelle Jean having 5 years of status quo on her side.
Bottom line is we would either be forced to accept our new Queen Michaelle Jean, try and find resolution through the courts... unlikely, or have an all out Civil War, where everyone of us decides who we each believe to be Canada's Head of State, and then we all grab guns and start killing our friends and family who don't agree with us.
Never thought I would be thankful that Stephen Harper did anything, but the realization that he may well have inadvertently prevented an all out civil war (or Revolution depending on your outlook) by his political games taunting the Governor General and the Opposition to forcing an election while he was looking at a potential majority.
Catastrophe Averted, now I must make dinner, ahh what a day :)
We have all seen the news footage of these events, lets go down memory lane... Iran 1979... The Philippines 1986... Yugoslavia 2000... Argentina 2001... The Philippines again 2001... Bolivia 2003... Georgia 2003... Ukraine 2004/5... Ecuador 2005... Bolivia again 2005 (remind me not to move to Bolivia anytime soon) .... and of course Canada 2009...
WAIT, CANADA!!??!! 2009!!! My math, history, and geography all suck, but I think that means HERE and NOW. Oh crap, why didn't I see the burning cars, protesters getting shot, and the army mobilized to seize power... I slept in today, but seriously did I miss it ALL? No. Sorry. Wrong! This is Canad; that kind of stuff doesn't happen here, we do things differently than those crazy banana republics.
Well, that is correct. This is Canada and yes we do things differently here. Here our coup d'état didn't involve guns, or mass protests, or a significant change in our way of life. In fact, it was intended on never even receiving any press, but thankfully their well-laid revolutionary plans were thwarted and it did (sort-of) make the news (in a manner of speaking). Now as Canadians we must recognize what happened, understand the purposeful, malicious intent behind it and ensure it NEVER happens again.
You are now likely wondering what exactly I am talking about and possibly even wondering what my tin foil hat looks like. However, please let me explain. First of all what I am talking about first hit the news on the afternoon of Thursday Oct 8, 2009. Here is the article. Now on first read it appears to be a fairly innocent slip of the tongue that Stephen Harper responded to in a fairly harsh manner. The particularly savvy among us would recognize the shrewd political maneuverings of Harper's minority government. To be honest, my interest in the story before an hour ago was nothing more than interest in the "meta" politics involved and the cleverness at Stephan Harper's actions in the grand scheme of things. However today with this news article, the whole tone of the story changes and you start to see the toes of the coup d'état poking out from under the blanket of deception.
Here is the situation and a relative time-line:
- Monday October 5, 2009 Governor General Michaelle Jean refers to herself as Canada's Head of State twice during a speech given to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
- Wednesday October 7, 2009 The Prime Ministers Office issues a statement saying that Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's Head of State, and said that the Governor General should not be referring to herself as Canada's Head of State.
- Friday October 9, 2009 Rideau Hall launches a new website with numerous references to Governor General Michaelle Jean as "head of state"
- Retired Liberal Senator Laurier LaPierre publicly announces that all 'decent Canadians' should accept Governor General Michaelle Jean as Canada's Head of State and that our monarchist system needs to be done away with.
Stephen Harper publicly denouncing the Governor General for referring to herself as the Head of State was the "kink" in her plan. Laurier LaPierre's public statement on Friday was an attempt to counter Harper's statement and try to compel "decent Canadians" to recognize the Governor General as the Head of State.
This is nothing short of scary when you consider what could have happened if nothing was said. The Governor General gets international recognition as our Head of State, through the website and other internal educational means she essentially tricks normal Canadians that she has always been the head of state, and then when it comes time that a replacement was to be appointed the trap is sprung. Who determines the next Governor General? Well the Head of State does, after considering the recommendations of the current Prime Minister. So now we have the outgoing Governor General appointing the incoming Governor General... umm the only thing that differs from a true Monarchy is the tradition of WHO gets appointed, but the reality of the situation is the same, Governor General Michaelle Jean would have started a line of Royalty.
Now you may all think to yourself "but that is impossible, we would then stop her!" But How? Legally she has the status quo of being the recognized Head of State both internally and internationally. Legally she is the Commander in Chief and is ultimately the one who holds the power to order the Canadian Military to do this, that, or the other. Constitutionally the matter would be muddied as then the distinction of exactly WHO is the Head of State is debated with Governor General Michaelle Jean having 5 years of status quo on her side.
Bottom line is we would either be forced to accept our new Queen Michaelle Jean, try and find resolution through the courts... unlikely, or have an all out Civil War, where everyone of us decides who we each believe to be Canada's Head of State, and then we all grab guns and start killing our friends and family who don't agree with us.
Never thought I would be thankful that Stephen Harper did anything, but the realization that he may well have inadvertently prevented an all out civil war (or Revolution depending on your outlook) by his political games taunting the Governor General and the Opposition to forcing an election while he was looking at a potential majority.
Catastrophe Averted, now I must make dinner, ahh what a day :)
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Here Kitty Kitty....
So here in the lovely city of Calgary, Alberta, some unbelievably stupid individual thought to himself "Hey, it's 1am on a Sunday night, and since I am incredibly stupid and am pissed off that I spent yet another weekend with no date I am going to change that!!! I know, if I break into the Zoo, scale the outer perimeter fence of the tiger enclosure, and get a picture of me petting the tiger then all of my women problems will be over!!" As can be expected Monday morning greeted Calgarians with the following headlines...
Tiger Injures Man at Calgary Zoo
Oh My God. I mean seriously how STUPID could one person be? If only the tiger could have gotten at his reproductive areas, then the gene pool could have hugely benefited from this incident! Unfortunately it appears from the various news coverage on the mauling, that there isn't any explicit damage to his reproductive capabilities. We can always hope for secondary infections or at least take solace in the fact that any man that stupid will be exceptionally unlikely to reproduce.
While I know someone must not be able to reproduce as a result of their own stupidity to officially qualify for a Darwin's Award, but there is still hope, and in the mean time, I think he certainly deserves a Future Darwin Hopeful Award for all his fine effort to improve the future for us all.
Tiger Injures Man at Calgary Zoo
Oh My God. I mean seriously how STUPID could one person be? If only the tiger could have gotten at his reproductive areas, then the gene pool could have hugely benefited from this incident! Unfortunately it appears from the various news coverage on the mauling, that there isn't any explicit damage to his reproductive capabilities. We can always hope for secondary infections or at least take solace in the fact that any man that stupid will be exceptionally unlikely to reproduce.
While I know someone must not be able to reproduce as a result of their own stupidity to officially qualify for a Darwin's Award, but there is still hope, and in the mean time, I think he certainly deserves a Future Darwin Hopeful Award for all his fine effort to improve the future for us all.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice
So first of all, I apologize for not writing in some time. Starting up school again has altered my priorities. Now since I am approaching the 4th week of classes, I feel inclined to write again :) It has nothing to do with my 6 page paper due for 1/3rd of my mark in one class, a quiz in another and a midterm worth 25% of my mark in yet another... Yes, I love procrastination, guilty as charged. However I digress, on to the task at hand which today is Abortion.
Last week I had the express displeasure of seeing exceptionally graphic images of aborted fetuses displayed on University campus which is why this is top of mind. Now keeping in line with my outlook that perspective is everything, I attempted to resolve myself with the Pro-Life stance by setting aside my personal views and morals. My hopes were that by trying to put myself in their shoes I could gain a better perspective to enlarge my knowledge base and at the very least have a greater understanding (note understanding does not equal agreement) of their views. However I was denied even a minimalist level of understanding because of what I see as a fundamental flaw in what they desire.
Since this is a touchy subject, I would like to preface the meat of my argument with a request for clarifications on any points, or assumptions, I have made about either the Pro-Life viewpoint, or the Pro-Choice viewpoint. I will also restrict my comments to a very confined aspect of these large issues as I see this aspect as both irresolvable and critical to even attempt to understand a Pro-Life viewpoint. If there is resolution to the problem I present, I would certainly appreciate a more enlightened viewpoint and as such welcome any discussion on this. While I recognize that "God" has a place in many people's lives, I also understand that everyone's interpretation of God is personal and not necessarily subject to the laws of basic logic; as such I will attempt to present this fundamental flaw absent of morals or religion with a one largely uncontroversial exception.
Ok now that I have laid out the framework, let me proceed. Pro-Life asserts that life begins at conception and that any abortion at anytime is murder. Science largely backs this viewpoint up if you accept that life does not require anything more than the miracle of cells dividing. So if we proceed on this basis that abortion at any time is murder and should be outlawed similarly to how any forms of contraception were outlawed in the late 1800's, then we are presented with one massive problem.
What about the case of rape that results in pregnancy? How does the Pro-Life supporter deal with this situation? I find it hard to believe that anyone regardless of religion or moral thought processes (short rapists of the worst sort) would insist that a victim of rape be required to carry the pregnancy to full term, give birth, and put the baby up for adoption. Since there is required this obvious exception to the law Pro-Life people would like to have, how would they then define rape? Violent rape? Date Rape? Spousal Rape? Incest? The rape of a child? The list goes on, and then how do we determine if someone was subjected to the wide and varied forms of rape? Conviction takes too long, in some cases the would be abortion could be entering kindergarten and I don't think aborting at that time would provide any help to the victim of the rape. So *IF* someone is raped, they get an immediate abortion, and since we cannot wait for convictions, or a third parties determination if in fact rape occurred, we then need to modify the law to say that if any woman is pregnant as a result of anything they call rape then they get an abortion if they desire.
So with such a clause in legislation that prevents an abortion by choice, there is nothing stopping any woman that so desires to say that she was raped, cannot identify the attacker, washed away evidence, and delayed notifying police because of shame, thus obtaining her abortion via legal means. Since this allows any woman to decide to have an abortion by using the rape clause, why have a law banning abortion in the first place? It has no effect, no enforceability, no reason. Regardless of any other argument, it is impossible to reconcile this problem without further victimizing victims of rape, and since any sane person understands that continuing to victimize a victim of rape is absolutely not an option, then why do we continue to have this issue pop up?
So since under the legislation that would ban abortion, this rape clause is an absolute requirement, and that any form of that rape clause invalidates the legislation in question, then it seems appropriate to just let the issue die (pardon the pun).
In my experience Pro-Life supporters are predominantly members of right-wing religious groups, or have similar ideals that do not mesh with mainstream society. While you are welcome to have your own policies and "laws" internal to your group (freedom of religion), the rest of us who do not share your views have the right to not be subjected to the laws of a religion or group that we do not affiliate with. This is the same concept behind same-sex marriage. While I understand many religions do not condone same-sex marriage; they do not, and should not, be able to force society as a whole to condemn such marriages as well. Marriage is a legal term that is applied in a non-religious or moral context and so trying to govern the use of that term with religious or moral imperatives is fundamentally flawed.
I do not go into your Sunday services, or your home, or your legal documents, and force my own views on you. What you do in these situations has nothing to do with me, and as such I have no business trying to force my views on you, likewise those who fight against extending equal rights to all need to stop trying to force their views upon others in the form of secular laws.
If any Pro-Life supporters wish to respond to this and counter this basic argument against banning abortion, I welcome a religion free discussion on the matter. Absence of any response, I will rightfully assume that there is no counter to this fundamental problem and that Abortion is an inalienable right of every woman on this planet and will remain as such until science can remove the fetus from the pregnant woman and bring them to term in an incubator of some sort. Of course this would present other problems, but that is separate and distinct from forcing a woman to incubate a child because of biologic circumstances she may or may not have had a choice over.
Now, having said all that, education is something to be treasured, and as such I fully support people providing education to their varying viewpoints, but it needs to be done in a voluntary manner, not in an illegal display in the middle of a University campus. I do however commend the University of Calgary in the manner in which they dealt with the illegal display. It was mature, responsible, and respected the dignity of all involved.
Last week I had the express displeasure of seeing exceptionally graphic images of aborted fetuses displayed on University campus which is why this is top of mind. Now keeping in line with my outlook that perspective is everything, I attempted to resolve myself with the Pro-Life stance by setting aside my personal views and morals. My hopes were that by trying to put myself in their shoes I could gain a better perspective to enlarge my knowledge base and at the very least have a greater understanding (note understanding does not equal agreement) of their views. However I was denied even a minimalist level of understanding because of what I see as a fundamental flaw in what they desire.
Since this is a touchy subject, I would like to preface the meat of my argument with a request for clarifications on any points, or assumptions, I have made about either the Pro-Life viewpoint, or the Pro-Choice viewpoint. I will also restrict my comments to a very confined aspect of these large issues as I see this aspect as both irresolvable and critical to even attempt to understand a Pro-Life viewpoint. If there is resolution to the problem I present, I would certainly appreciate a more enlightened viewpoint and as such welcome any discussion on this. While I recognize that "God" has a place in many people's lives, I also understand that everyone's interpretation of God is personal and not necessarily subject to the laws of basic logic; as such I will attempt to present this fundamental flaw absent of morals or religion with a one largely uncontroversial exception.
Ok now that I have laid out the framework, let me proceed. Pro-Life asserts that life begins at conception and that any abortion at anytime is murder. Science largely backs this viewpoint up if you accept that life does not require anything more than the miracle of cells dividing. So if we proceed on this basis that abortion at any time is murder and should be outlawed similarly to how any forms of contraception were outlawed in the late 1800's, then we are presented with one massive problem.
What about the case of rape that results in pregnancy? How does the Pro-Life supporter deal with this situation? I find it hard to believe that anyone regardless of religion or moral thought processes (short rapists of the worst sort) would insist that a victim of rape be required to carry the pregnancy to full term, give birth, and put the baby up for adoption. Since there is required this obvious exception to the law Pro-Life people would like to have, how would they then define rape? Violent rape? Date Rape? Spousal Rape? Incest? The rape of a child? The list goes on, and then how do we determine if someone was subjected to the wide and varied forms of rape? Conviction takes too long, in some cases the would be abortion could be entering kindergarten and I don't think aborting at that time would provide any help to the victim of the rape. So *IF* someone is raped, they get an immediate abortion, and since we cannot wait for convictions, or a third parties determination if in fact rape occurred, we then need to modify the law to say that if any woman is pregnant as a result of anything they call rape then they get an abortion if they desire.
So with such a clause in legislation that prevents an abortion by choice, there is nothing stopping any woman that so desires to say that she was raped, cannot identify the attacker, washed away evidence, and delayed notifying police because of shame, thus obtaining her abortion via legal means. Since this allows any woman to decide to have an abortion by using the rape clause, why have a law banning abortion in the first place? It has no effect, no enforceability, no reason. Regardless of any other argument, it is impossible to reconcile this problem without further victimizing victims of rape, and since any sane person understands that continuing to victimize a victim of rape is absolutely not an option, then why do we continue to have this issue pop up?
So since under the legislation that would ban abortion, this rape clause is an absolute requirement, and that any form of that rape clause invalidates the legislation in question, then it seems appropriate to just let the issue die (pardon the pun).
In my experience Pro-Life supporters are predominantly members of right-wing religious groups, or have similar ideals that do not mesh with mainstream society. While you are welcome to have your own policies and "laws" internal to your group (freedom of religion), the rest of us who do not share your views have the right to not be subjected to the laws of a religion or group that we do not affiliate with. This is the same concept behind same-sex marriage. While I understand many religions do not condone same-sex marriage; they do not, and should not, be able to force society as a whole to condemn such marriages as well. Marriage is a legal term that is applied in a non-religious or moral context and so trying to govern the use of that term with religious or moral imperatives is fundamentally flawed.
I do not go into your Sunday services, or your home, or your legal documents, and force my own views on you. What you do in these situations has nothing to do with me, and as such I have no business trying to force my views on you, likewise those who fight against extending equal rights to all need to stop trying to force their views upon others in the form of secular laws.
If any Pro-Life supporters wish to respond to this and counter this basic argument against banning abortion, I welcome a religion free discussion on the matter. Absence of any response, I will rightfully assume that there is no counter to this fundamental problem and that Abortion is an inalienable right of every woman on this planet and will remain as such until science can remove the fetus from the pregnant woman and bring them to term in an incubator of some sort. Of course this would present other problems, but that is separate and distinct from forcing a woman to incubate a child because of biologic circumstances she may or may not have had a choice over.
Now, having said all that, education is something to be treasured, and as such I fully support people providing education to their varying viewpoints, but it needs to be done in a voluntary manner, not in an illegal display in the middle of a University campus. I do however commend the University of Calgary in the manner in which they dealt with the illegal display. It was mature, responsible, and respected the dignity of all involved.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Next Step for Human Rights Complaints
When Alberta de-listed both Chiropractic services and Gender Reassignment Surgery from the list of funded procedures, Alberta's Transsexual Community launched over 40 Human Rights Complaints against the Alberta Government for violating their Human Rights. Discriminating against someone because they are transsexual is against the law in Alberta. So WHY is de-listing GRS a human rights violation, while de-listing Chiropratic care simply another retarded move by the provinical Government?
The difference lies in HOW the funding cuts were implemented.
Chiropractic patients were given 3 full months (until July 1, 2009) to prepare for the elimination of government subsidy of their treatment. It is reasonable to assume that treatment for all but the most extreme acute injuries was able to be concluded and a smooth transition made by the patients to non-chiropractic treatment options that remain covered by Alberta Health and Wellness for those whose financial situation means they can no longer seek chiropractic care. 13.5 million dollars is the additional cost to the health system to provide this smooth transition.
13.5 million dollars would have funded approximately 300 GRS surgeries. GRS funding was eliminated immediately for evey patient. No time was made for alternative arrangments. Current treatment protocols were immediately halted. So the problem hinges on WHY Chiropratic patients were treated differently then Transsexual patients. Since there is none, not providing a similar transition for GRS delisting is clearly discriminatory.
The Health Minister made statements on the floor of the Assembly that assured Albertans that those in the treatment protocol, would receive funding. The Minister repeated those comments to the media outside the Legislature
The Health Minister has gone back on his word and is NOT providing this transitional funding.
Nearly three months has passed since the complaints were initially filed.The Human Rights Commission has been working closely with myself and others affected by this decision to get all the ducks in a row. The Human Right Commission legal team has been spending the last three months researching the various legal precedents that affect this specific situation.
I am pleased to announce that process has been concluded and Human Rights Complaints have been officially accepted. Alberta Health and Wellness likely has the complaints in hand this very moment and are formulating their response. As of today the Province of Alberta is undeniably spending millions of taxpayer dollars to respond to these complaints. While I can only specifically comment on my specific complaint, I believe the total number of complaints to be over 100.
At any point in time the Government of Alberta has the ability to STOP wasting tax payer money and take the moral high ground, and admit their error by reinstating funding. The legal advice they are wasting taxpayer money on is nothing more than common sense. They are wrong. How many millions of dollars will be wasted until they realize this? How many millions of dollars were wasted on legal fees with the failed ring road project in Calgary? It is obvious to anyone using their head that NO ONE would agree to have their relative’s grave desecrated and major highway built over it.
Common Sense is Free; however it appears to be a rare commodity indeed within the PC Caucus.
The difference lies in HOW the funding cuts were implemented.
Chiropractic patients were given 3 full months (until July 1, 2009) to prepare for the elimination of government subsidy of their treatment. It is reasonable to assume that treatment for all but the most extreme acute injuries was able to be concluded and a smooth transition made by the patients to non-chiropractic treatment options that remain covered by Alberta Health and Wellness for those whose financial situation means they can no longer seek chiropractic care. 13.5 million dollars is the additional cost to the health system to provide this smooth transition.
13.5 million dollars would have funded approximately 300 GRS surgeries. GRS funding was eliminated immediately for evey patient. No time was made for alternative arrangments. Current treatment protocols were immediately halted. So the problem hinges on WHY Chiropratic patients were treated differently then Transsexual patients. Since there is none, not providing a similar transition for GRS delisting is clearly discriminatory.
The Health Minister made statements on the floor of the Assembly that assured Albertans that those in the treatment protocol, would receive funding. The Minister repeated those comments to the media outside the Legislature
It would not be right for us to now say, ‘Well, you’ve spent all this money, we’re now going to change the rules,’ ” Liepert said. “It seems to me to be unfair to have someone believe that a certain surgery was going to take place, dug into their pockets for hormonal drugs that were prescribed by the medical community, and somehow we don’t follow through on it.
The Health Minister has gone back on his word and is NOT providing this transitional funding.
Nearly three months has passed since the complaints were initially filed.The Human Rights Commission has been working closely with myself and others affected by this decision to get all the ducks in a row. The Human Right Commission legal team has been spending the last three months researching the various legal precedents that affect this specific situation.
I am pleased to announce that process has been concluded and Human Rights Complaints have been officially accepted. Alberta Health and Wellness likely has the complaints in hand this very moment and are formulating their response. As of today the Province of Alberta is undeniably spending millions of taxpayer dollars to respond to these complaints. While I can only specifically comment on my specific complaint, I believe the total number of complaints to be over 100.
At any point in time the Government of Alberta has the ability to STOP wasting tax payer money and take the moral high ground, and admit their error by reinstating funding. The legal advice they are wasting taxpayer money on is nothing more than common sense. They are wrong. How many millions of dollars will be wasted until they realize this? How many millions of dollars were wasted on legal fees with the failed ring road project in Calgary? It is obvious to anyone using their head that NO ONE would agree to have their relative’s grave desecrated and major highway built over it.
Common Sense is Free; however it appears to be a rare commodity indeed within the PC Caucus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
