Speedkill

1. A and B
2. not B
3. = not A

Is this valid logic? No? Well, you better inform this woman, she’s quite confused:

(AgapePress) – A Pennsylvania pro-family group is denouncing Senator-elect Bob Casey, Jr., for pledging to advance hate crimes legislation once he’s in Washington.

…

“You know … When [people] think of Bob Casey, they think of [former Pennsylvania Governor] Bob Casey, Sr., and too many people equate Bob Casey, Jr., with his dad,” says the pro-family spokeswoman

“Bob Casey, Jr., ran on a pro-family, pro-life campaign throughout the campaign, and he’s not,” Gramley continues. “He’s neither pro-life nor pro-family, and this statement that he made on Wednesday proves that even more so.”

Ignoring the the bizarre claim that “hate crimes legislation with protection for sexual orientation = anti-family,” where did the denial that Casey is pro-life come from? Can hate crimes legislation prove someone is against abortion? Apparently.

Also, did you know being pro-family also means you’re pro-gratuitous insults?

Gramley adds that she is glad Bob Casey, Sr., is not alive “to see the direction his son is headed.”

All for Casey’s support for hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation. You’d think they’d realize that hate crimes legislation covers gay people assaulting straight people because they’re straight. After all, the gays rampaging over this country with their homosexual agenda are bound to beat up a couple uncooperative recruits along the way, right? Why forsake a little protection?

I just don’t understand these people.

I’m still happy about the election, but I’ve been meaning to write this for a little while.

What is it with people bringing up dead soldiers in Iraq in response to abortion? Scott did it the other day and I think Wulfgar has said something similar.

The argument is that it’s a double standard to be against abortion because it’s the killing of innocent children while being for a war in which innocent people have died.

I don’t get it. The argument works against anyone who isn’t a strict pacifist (which is a group in short supply among MT bloggers). If you’ve ever supported a war, you’ve supported a war in which innocent people died. Which apparently means you can’t be against killing people, through abortion or otherwise. The logic is exactly the same if I make this claim: “So, you’re against the death of innocent people, huh? Yet, you support the war in Iraq, where innocent people are dying every day. I don’t get the double standard.”

The events don’t seem comparable. We tolerate innocent deaths in war because we believe a greater good will come of it (or that the consequences of not engaging in a war will result in more innocent deaths). At least, we rational people tolerate innocent deaths for such reasons. Even with people who seem to think the killing of non-combatants is justified because they’re all crazy Muslims the double standard claim doesn’t work. The real issue with them is their standards for guilt and innocence.

We’re all against the killing of innocent people. Perhaps you think the innocent deaths in Iraq are too much to tolerate. Others don’t, but that doesn’t make it hypocritical for them be against abortion, anymore than being a supporter of the war in Afghanistan makes it hypocritical to be against serial killers. The issues here are the standards for guilt, innocence, and personhood. We need to resolve those differences before making claims about double standards.

From here:

It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Color me surprised. And they got a certificate of approval for such a waste of resources from the government? Unfathomable.

I’ve heard people say how impressed they are with them, but they always strike me as so over-the-top as to not be taken seriously. And of course, meth use in Montana was already dropping steadly, so they’re ineffective and pointless.

Sadly, our two Senatorial candidates have been falling all over each other to declare their support for the MMP and more.

Nothing like the subject of AIDS to bring out the gay bashing, I guess. Take a look at this:

The ceremony involved Secretary of State Rice and the swearing in of Mark Dybul, an open homosexual, as the nation’s new global AIDS coordinator — a position that carries the rank of ambassador. An Associated Press photo of the ceremony also shows a smiling First Lady Laura Bush and Dybul’s homosexual “partner,” Jason Claire. During her comments, Rice referred to the presence of Claire’s mother and called her Dybul’s “mother-in-law,” a term normally reserved for the heterosexuals who have been legally married.

…

The Washington Blade, a pro-homosexual publication in the nation’s capital, was accurate on Friday when it predicted Rice’s remarks would “rais[e] the eyebrows of conservative Christian leaders.” Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary’s comments were “profoundly offensive” and fly in the face of the Bush administration’s endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic.

Not just offended, but profoundly offended. The next paragraph is really the crazy one:

“We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” says Sprigg. “But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner’s family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing.”

Let’s see if I read that right. The problem with putting a fox in charge of a henhouse is that the fox is a fox and will eat the hens, correct? That the fox will do the opposite of the protecting the henhouse? Translating that to gays and AIDS: putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is bad because they wants to spread AIDS, rather than combat it? Yep, that sounds…insane. Really though, the distressing thing is that Rice was being nice to a gay guy. We can’t have that.

Do these people listen to themselves talk? No wonder the White House thinks they’re “goofy.”

You can watch a documentary by Jon Ronson on David Icke over at Google video. Icke, if you don’t know, is the guy who claims the world is ruled by 4th dimension, blood drinking, child molesting lizards. It’s a pretty interesting documentary, as we see anti-Icke types attempting to run him out of Vancouver and the responses of Icke and his supporters. The issue of anti-semitism in his writings is also explored. Some people apparently think Icke means Jews when he says lizards. I kinda doubt it, honestly. Free speech issues make an appearance, too, as an anti-Icke coalition gets several of his appearances cancelled. That of course leads to the reinforcement of his and his supporters’ views about the nature of the world.

All in all, the main point to absorb is this: if Alex Jones thinks your views are “asinine,” you’re seriously insane.

(via Hit and Run)

We do not have souls. Briefly,

1. There is no evidence for a soul.
2. The mind appears to depend on the brain (i.e. trauma leading to odd characteristics). Adding a soul to this (soul is expressed through the brain, so the brain being damaged inhibits the expression of the soul) is purely ad hoc.
3. No coherent mechanism for interaction between the physical brain and an immaterial soul.

There’s more here, if you’re interested.

This leaves our mental functions wholly dependent on natural factors. The precise weighting of the influence of genes and environment is irrelevent here. What genes we have are outside of our control. The environment in which our mind is shaped is also out of our control until a certain age. By this time, our character has been shaped to a significant degree. We have only limited control over our environment as an adult.

So, we have no control of the factors that make us who we are for all intents and purposes. This includes everything: intelligence, work ethic, physical qualities, moral values, etc. What about “overcoming” deficits in such areas? Your ability to “overcome” other mental or physical limitations is itself a mental feature and is determined by factors outside of your control.

Seeing as such limitations are outside of any person’s control, it is wrong to base moral judgements about such a person on them. For example, if someone murders another, it was not wrong under any circumstances for that person to do so. The action was not controllable in any sense, as the urges and decision to act on them were wholly determined by factors outside the control of any one person. Murder itself may be wrong, but the murderer bears no responsibility.

Read more…

I’ve only been sort of following the case of Abraham Cherrix, a 16 year old with cancer who has refused to undergo chemotherapy. A court ordered him to do so, but now it appears that order has been lifted pending a trial.

This is a strange case. Orac has made the case for supporting forcing him to undergo chemotherapy and he’s pretty much spot on. It’s pretty clear that the kid and his parents are persuing a dangerously delusional option in going for an “alternative” treatment. It’s exactly like Christian Scientists believing they can cure people simply through prayer and refusing to take their children to a doctor. It’s certainly neglectful on the part of his parents. Then again, Abraham is 16. Is that old for him to be making his own decisions in this area? It’s damn close. His delusions will only hurt himself and I have no desire for the government to intervene for the good of all the delusional people in this country. Of course, we don’t typically allow children to kill themselves because of their fantasies.

I’m genuinely torn. The only thing that seems clear is that the Hoxsey treatment is altie pseudoscience. That pseudoscience has led to this situation.

I know, I’m picking on Agape Press again, but this isn’t something that wacky. It’s a claim about how things are going in this country:

Sadly, Williams acknowledges, America has in many ways failed to honor its Judeo-Christian heritage and has “departed from that since 1962 and 1963, when prayer was taken out of school.” He refers to the two landmark Supreme Court decisions — Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) — that effectively outlawed staff-led prayer in public schools, based on the argument that the U.S. Constitution requires a so-called separation of church and state.

“You can go back and establish that year as a beginning of a downward spiral that we have seen in our nation in every area,” the Tennessee pastor contends. He says the United States is continuing on that downward spiral, and the only thing that can reverse its direction is true revival.

Ok, everything sucks after the early 60s. How true is that? Via The Straight Dope, here’s a PDF with a few crime stats from last century. Homicide rate:

Two things to notice. One, there’s already an upward trend starting in the late 50s. Two, the homicide rate today is about the same as it was in the early 60s. Apparently, Jesus was pissed until the late 70s, but has now come to terms with our sinful ways.

Robbery rate:

Only the first point from above applies here, though Jesus still seems to have become less pissed off as of late. Downward spiral? Not really.

Now, let’s go in a different direction. How about STD stats? Gonorrhea rates were rising by the early 50s and peaked in the mid 70s. Again, Jesus has apparently accepted us for who we are. While we can’t go back to the 60s for this one, Syphillis is lower than it was in 1970. That one throws a kink in the Jesus got over us theory, however, as there’s a spike in the early 90s. Then again, rates drop precipitously after that, so maybe he was holding off on Syphillis. What about teen pregnancy? Dropping, though it’s been pretty consistent since the mid 70s. Downward spiral? Oops.

Now, have we learned our lesson? No staff-led prayer in schools is not the end of the world. We’re doing fine. Scaremongers who think “post hoc ergo propter hoc” has something to do with birds need to step outside of their narrow worldview a bit more often.

Arkansas court backs gay foster parents

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child’s well-being, the state’s high court ruled Thursday.

The court agreed with a lower court judge that the state’s child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation of powers doctrine, the justices said.

The board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.

Good for Arkansas. Now, if only they’d stop allowing discrimination on the basis of religion in custody cases.