ZOMGitsCriss on Ezra Levant and Macleans and Fitna

March 26, 2010 — xanthippa

ZOMGitsCriss is somewhat of a presence among the ‘pro-free-speech’ crowd on YouTube…

She is a part of what I think is a small but growing international group of young people (most of whom are quite ‘left-wing’ – though, I have no idea where Criss stands politically) who are fighting the anti-censorship, pro-free-speech attitudes and policies which are beginning to creep onto the Internet and which threaten the impartiality of this medium to carry all kinds of information and all kinds of messages without outright censorship or some of them nebulous, non-transparent machinations through search-engine algorithm-manipulation which seem to make some information on the internet easy to find while making other ‘stuff’ so hard to find, it is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible!

Anyhow….

When I saw that the latest video of this Romanian free-speech activist mentions Ezra Levant, Mcleans (the Mark Steyn thingy) and Fitna – well, I though I ought to share it with you.

So, without further ado, here is “Islam is so wonderful and sciency and peaceful”:

Posted in atheism, freedoms, opression, religion, science. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Agnostic: what it does – and does not – mean

February 19, 2010 — xanthippa

One term misused in debates about ‘religion’ almost as often as the term ‘atheist’ is the term ‘agnostic’.

Perhaps it’s the Aspie in me, but I think that if people are going to make passionate arguments, often using some terms in an authoritarian or patronizing manner, they ought to have taken the time to learn what those terms actually mean.  (Of course, not everyone does that – but, many do…)

The term ‘agnostic’ does not describe a person’s ‘belief in’ or ‘non-belief in’ or ‘belief-in-the-non’ existence of god(s).

Not even a little bit.

An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the existence of god(s).

An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the non-existence of  god(s).

An ‘agnostic’ can hold no belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).

Still, many people use the term to mean ‘someone who does not believe one way or the other if god(s) exist’…..

Sorry – that is NOT what the word ‘agnostic’ describes!!!

Certainly, some agnostics fall into the category of ‘not holding a belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).  But, that is only because there is an overlap in ‘groups’ or ‘states of belief’ that various definitions describe.

…kind of like there is an overlap between ‘long arms’ and ‘long hair’.  Both revolve about something being ‘long’.  And, some people with ‘long arms’ also have ‘long hair’.  But the terms each describe a different ‘long’ – so they cannot be used as if they meant the same thing!

Yes – I am getting bogged down in words.  To re-phrase:  the term ‘agnostic’ may include theists, non-theists, atheists or any other -theist group because it does not describe the state of one’s belief in the divine.

Rather, it describes one’s belief about the ‘ability to have knowledge’ of the existence of the divine.

Let’s look at the root of the word:

‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’ in Greek.

The term, when used in English, refers to ‘spiritual enlightenment’ – as in, the type of ‘mystical enlightenment’ a person receives during a ‘spiritual  rapture’ or ‘spirit quest’ or another altered-state type meditation or similar experience.

For example, Gnostic Christians do not recognize the authority of any church or clergyman, because they strive for direct spiritual knowledge – gnosis.  This they regard as much more important than any dogma…

The prefix ‘a-‘ simply means ‘apart from’.

Thus, ‘a-gnostic’ – taken bit by bit – literally means ‘apart from (spiritual) knowledge’.

Once ‘put together’, the term ‘agnostic’ means ‘belief that it is un-knowable ‘ if god(s) do or do not exist.

Thus, this is a statement of belief.  Yes, to be an agnostic, one must hold this belief!

But this belief is not about the existence of the divine: it is a belief about existence of knowledge of the divine!

Specifically, an agnostic actively believes that we cannot know whether god(s) exist.

This does not preclude choosing to believe, anyway.  Many people have concluded that they cannot know for sure if god(s) exist, so, to be on the safe side, they decide to believe!  This is the very point of Pascal’s Wager.

Blaise Pascal argued that we cannot know – through reason, so really, really know – if God exists.  Therefore, we ought to consider the 2 possible scenarios (God exists and God does not exist) and our 2 choices of action (believe in God or not believe in God) and do a risk-assessment:

Scenario 1:  God does not exist

Choice 1:  behave as if God does exist

Result – more effort during life, but, nothing gained.

Choice 2:  behave as if God does not exist

Result – nothing lost and nothing gained.

Scenario 2:  God exists:

Choice 1:   behave as if God does exist

Result – more effort during life, but huge gain at ‘the end’! Eternal Salvation!

Choice 2:  behave as if God does not exist

Result – less effort during life, but then… everything lost! Eternal damnation!

Therefore, Pascal’s reasoning goes, the cost to one’s soul of ‘not believing’ in God is much greater (eternal damnation) than the cost of believing in God while alive (obeying the church).  Therefore, the only reasonable choice is to believe!

(OK – there could be an argument made whether Pascal actually said ‘choose to believe’ or ‘live as if you believe’:  the first one would be an agnostic who chooses to be a theist, the second one would be an agnostic who is an atheist, but chooses to behave as a theist.  But, that – as well as just how ‘voluntary’ it is ‘to believe’ – is a whole different discussion!)

Aside:  this same argument has been used by some people to justify spending tons of money on ‘preventing the disaster of global warming/anthropogenic climate change’.  That ought to suffice in helping us recognize that the whole ‘ACC’ movement is a religion, not science, and that ‘carbon credits’ are its ‘indulgences’.

But – back to the main point…

Summary:  The term ‘agnostic’ does not refer to one’s ‘beliefs’ about the existence of God.  Rather, it is the positive (‘actively present’) belief that it is impossible to know if god(s) exist.

Thus, it is a belief about the nature (presence) of knowledge.  Specific knowledge, in this case, but knowledge none the less.

It is not a statement about one’s state of belief in the subject of that knowledge – the existence of god(s).

Agnostics can either believe that god(s) exist – or not.  They just believe they cannot ever actually know…

Posted in atheism, debate, religion. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

‘Atheist’: a definition

February 9, 2010 — xanthippa

Before I get started on defining ‘atheism’ or ‘what  makes someone an atheist’, it is important to say some things about what ‘atheism’ is not.

‘Atheism’ is not a formal or codified doctrine, like, say, Christianity, or even Humanism, is.

There is no set of ‘beliefs’ or ‘values’ which ‘atheists’ share or subscribe to.

That is because in order to have a shared ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’,  a label must describe some types of ‘held’ beliefs or convictions of the people being thus labeled.  ‘Atheism’ does not describe a set of ‘held’ beliefs – or even just one belief.

Instead, it describes ‘absence of belief’:  a very specific absence of one specific belief – the belief in the existence of deities.

Atheist:

An atheist is a person who does not ‘hold the belief’ that God(s) and/or Goddess(es) exist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Some people refer to monotheism (not believing in the existence Gods or Goddesses – except one) as ‘selective atheism’:  people who believe in just one deity necessarily disbelieve in the existence of all deities but one.

Atheists may still belong to a religion:  not every religion has deities in it!  From ‘the big 5’, Buddhism is a religion which does not address the question of deities.  And, no, Buddha is not a God – not in any way, shape or form – and never was.  And – Buddhism is not the only atheistic religion.

Communism, for example, is another example of a religion which does not have any deities:  it requires the ‘belief in’/’submission to’/’acceptance of’ certain principles (of collectivism, in this case) instead.  And, there are countless more!

Describing something as ‘atheistic’ means that it does not address the question of the existence of God or Gods or Goddesses.  Therefore, any and every thing, conversation, organization and so on, which does not specifically proclaim the ‘belief in the existence of deities’ is, by definition, atheistic.

To lump all ‘atheists’ together as if they all subscribed to a common doctrine or school of thought would be even less accurate than lumping all ‘theists’ together:  while all ‘theists’ actually have a positive belief in the existence of one or more deities, defining someone as an ‘atheist’ does not define any actual belief.  It just says what these people do not believe.  It’s like identifying a group of people by saying ‘people who do not die their hair’…this can include anyone from people that have no hair to die, to people who like their ‘natural’ haircolour…all the way to people who would change their hair colour, if only they could (or, if it were easier).

OK – this is getting muddled. Let me try another approach.

Though there are ‘shades in-between’, these are several distinct ‘types’ or ‘major classes’ of atheists.  In order to describe them, please, indulge me and play a little thought experiment with me:

Let’s say that I tell you I have a neighbour. Let’s say that I now show you a picture of a woman with blond hair and say this is my neighbour..  Do you believe my neighbour is a natural blond?

***

Having never thought about my neighbour – much less a blond one – before now, it it not likely that you

  • believe my neighbour is a natural blond
  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

Therefore, you are ‘apart from belief’ whether my neighbour is a ‘natural blonde’.

This roughly approximates what I think of as the ‘what are gods and why should I believe in them’ atheists.  Not only do they not hold a belief either way, they don’t see the point of even thinking about it.  They simply do not care – and most of them don’t want to care.

***

Having looked at the picture, you may find there simply isn’t enough information there to make you

  • believe my neighbour is a natural blond
  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

Therefore, even though you have taken the time to investigate (you looked at the picture) and to think about it, yet, you don’t ‘believe’ one way or the  other.  You may think it is likely – say, 80% likely – that she might be a natural blonde.  Or not.  Who could tell?

This roughly approximates what I think of as ‘considered atheists’.  They have considered the question of the existence of deities, looked at the religions ‘out there’, thought about it, and did not become convinced enough to hold a belief one way or the other.  They may still be searching for ‘belief’, hoping to find it.  Or, they may not be.

***

Or, having looked at the picture, you may have noticed that the woman in the picture has blond hair with black roots… Therefore, you

  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

This is actually REALLY substantially different from the above two types of ‘apart from belief’ groups:  you actually believe in the truthfulness of one of the choices!  You just happen to believe in the ‘not’ option…

While you still ‘do not believe’ that my neighbour is a natural blond, but, in addition to ‘disbelieving’ that her blond-ness is natural, you actively believe that it is not.  Therefore, you have ‘an absence of belief’ in  the first proposition, and active/positive ‘belief’ in the second one.

Many people today refer to this group as ‘strong atheists’.  Frankly, that is not just wrong, it is silly.

The ‘atheist’ label refers to ‘absence of belief’ – and associating it with a belief (the belief in the ‘non-existence’) is inaccurate and misleading.  Unfortunately, the term ‘atheist’ became used in this very sense from very shortly after it was created, because many people find it difficult to understand that ‘absence of belief in Gods’ does not imply ‘belief of absence of Gods’…

…which does not mean that continuing to misuse the term is a good idea.

Plus, it seems to me that holding ANY ‘belief’ is a weakness – NOT a strength.

Therefore, referring to a ‘purist’ non-beliver as a ‘weak atheist’ and to a person who actually holds ANY form of a belief as a ‘strong atheist’ seems, to me, stupid at best. (OK – I’m not being particularly eloquent:  but I am being honest!)

***

Of course, there are many people whose reactions – given this thought experiment – would be quite different.  Like…

  • I believe the woman in this picture is a ‘natural blonde’ – but I don’t believe she is your neighbour!
  • What woman?  You are showing me a picture of a car!
  • Whatever her hair colour is, how natural it is – that is irrelevant.  She should cover her hair!
  • Hey!  This is a crayon drawing!  You drew this yourself!  You are trying to trick me!

….plus about a hundred other possible responses.  But, this post is NOT about THEM.  It is about showing that ‘disbelief’ is different that ‘belief’ – even different from ‘belief in  not’….

Of course, there are people – even self-identified as ‘atheists’ – who just don’t get this.

They did not do their homework.

They are  confusing any and all discussions on this issue.

And, that is too bad…

Posted in atheism, debate, language. Tags: , , , . 3 Comments »

Musings on the existence of God – and of Richard Dawkins

January 11, 2010 — xanthippa

A few days ago, Walker Morrow had a fun, humorous bit : Is there evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins?

In it is embeded  this link to a video (scroll down a little) which, in what I am told is a humorous manner, mocks Dawkins’s way of questioning the existence of God to question the existence of Richard Dawkins himself!

The flippant answer would be, of course, that I’ve seen a YouTube video where Thunderf00t interviews Richard Dawkins, and, when I see a video of Thunderf00t interviewing ‘God’, I’ll believe in ‘God’, too!

But, of course, my real answer is a little wordier….and weirder!

I do not know that Richard Dawkins exists!

And, making that realization is essential!

OK – perhaps this is the Aspie in me, or perhaps it is the scientist in me – or, some combination thereof.  But, by the time I was 13 (I grew up behind the Iron Curtain, so I had no access to philosophical or theological writing of any kind – this was just my simple, peasant-brain reasoning), I realized that I could not objectively prove that I myself exist!

My original formulation was very clumsy and I have not really refined the wording much, just shortened it a bit (OK – a lot) :

  1. The only way we learn about/observe/get data from our surroundings is via our senses.
  2. Our senses are demonstrably subjective (I could demonstrate this to myself, as my right eye perceives colours quite differently than my left eye does…but only just  before the onset of a migraine headache.  So, I concluded that our senses necessarily colour (pun intended)  our perceptions, making them definitely ‘not objective’.)
  3. Since the only information reaching ‘us’ about our surroundings is subjective (through the senses), it can be manipulated and we cannot make any objective conclusions based on it…like, say, to assert that any self-awareness we think we perceive is ‘our own’.

OK – so the argument is a bit ‘rough-around-the-edges’, but, you get the gist of it.

Some people think this is pointless prattle –  nothing but what Scott Adams would have called ‘mental masturbation’…

I beg to disagree!

Before a scientists makes any observation, she/he calibrates the instruments to be used.  This is important, because it sets the ‘baseline’ against which any results can be evaluated:  how good were the instruments, the accuracy of any measurements, the error margins, and all that.  If, for example, a thermometer measures temperature to the nearest degree, it will not reliably show variations of one-thousandth of a degree, and so on.

Similarly, if we are aware that all our perceptions are subjective and that we cannot even prove that ‘we’ are the bit we think of as our ‘self’, that we cannot objectively prove anything ‘absolutely’, not even our own existence as we perceive ourselves to be, it ‘calibrates’ our credulousness of what we perceive – so to speak!

Thus, if we are ‘objective’ in our reasoning, we are forced to admit that we  lack the capacity to ‘accept anything as absolute truth’ – or, if you will, as a tenet of faith.   To do so regardless would be irresponsible, to say the least.

Therefore, I ‘do not believe that Richard Dawkins exists’, any more than I ‘believe that I exist’!

It is essential that we understand that this ‘calibration’ does not mean that I can assume any such foolish thing as ‘I do not exist’ or ‘I do not need to behave as if I exist’ – not in the least.  The absence of belief in something does not imply the belief in the non-existence of it!   That is an important distinction – one too often lost on people not trained in logic.

It simply alerts me that everything has an ‘error margin’ and that nothing ought to be accepted ‘absolutely’, without reservations, without an implied error-margin.

Perhaps this is the manifesto of the ever-questioning skeptic….  Still, it prevents me (and many others like me) from being able to just ‘believe’ things, to have ‘religious faith’ – of any kind.

Posted in Aspergers, atheism, ignosticism, philosophy, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Pat Condell: Wake up, America

October 25, 2009 — xanthippa
Posted in atheism, freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Race, religion and gender: the new apartheid in Ontario’s Education System

October 22, 2009 — xanthippa

This issue has me so angry, I apologize ahead of time for the inevitably undisciplined rant I am about to unleash on you!

Why?

Because MY Canada is colour-blind, when it comes to race!

MY Canada is gender-blind, when it comes to sexism!

AND – MY Canada is all inclusive, when it comes to children!!!

And, in my Canada, religious affiliation is irrelevant when it comes to judging a person’s record as a human being!   Thank you very much!

During the last Ontario election, I could not bring myself to vote for the Conservatives….  Their leader, John Tory, proposed a public education system which was fully segregated on the basis of religion!!!

The very suggestion that a child’s religion – or any other ‘protected grounds’, as per our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ought to determine what school that child may or may not attend is so offensive and un-Canadian that it makes me see red!

The Conservatives lost that election:  and rightly so!!!

Aside:  Of course, before the election, I emailed my local Conservative candidate (now my MPP – Member of Provincial Parliament), Lisa MacLeod, asking her if she was indeed in favour of religious apartheid in our schools.  I still have her reply:  it angered me to no end to read that if her leader said so, she totally backed it…  (Perhaps this is the source of my dissatisfaction with my MPP – the ‘first impression’ she made on me, is rooted in this blatant sell-out of our most cherished freedoms, taking our precious children and sorting them by the accident of their birth!  I cannot trust anyone who would sacrifice our children to a doctrine or political party policy!)

And now, the Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, is planning to segregate our schools by sex!  You know, like they do in Saudi Arabia!!!

OK – I need to calm down.  Perhaps it’s ‘definition time’:

Apartheid:

Any policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

Separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

Do I need to go on?

Yes.  Ever since the British North American Act, there has been a religious apartheid in Ontario’s education:  one system for the Catholics, another for the Protestants.  Still, over the years, the ‘Protestant’ system has morphed and become secularized, separating the State from the Religion and keeping it out of the classroom.  The story is quite different when it comes to the Catholic system:  it has become known in Ontario as the SS – Separate Schools!

In my never-humble-opinion, the initials tell the story.  The very first public protest/demonstration I ever participated in was to protest the existence of the SS in our schooling!

Even the corrupt UN had recognized – and ruled – that the SS system in Ontario was in breech of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Predictably, the people of Ontario would not be complicit in this enslavement of our kids to their parent’s religious heritage.  The Liberals did not ‘win’ the election – as unbelievable it was that the universally reviled Dalton McGuinty could be re-elected, the Conservatives carefully and systematically LOST IT!

So, now, Dalton McGuinty (whose kids attend SS schools, and whose wife was a teacher in this corrupt system where government-funded religious indoctrination pollutes the minds of our children) is in power.  Complete control.  And, in no uncertain terms, he is instituting apartheid in our schools!  Apartheid of HIS own choosing!!!

Yes, he is very clear:  religious apartheid has no part in his plan.  That is how the Conservatives LOST EVERYTHING!!!

Instead, on his ‘watch’, we have seen the institution of religious apartheid in at least one school – a ‘pilot project’.

More like a ‘Pilate project!”

Unfortunately -yes.

Our school system now has – and enforces, as its ‘core policy’ – racial apartheid!!!

Here, in Ontario!

I wonder what would people like Martin Luther King, Jr. say about this policy of ‘Equal, but separate‘!!!

But, that is not evil enough for Black Boss McGuinty!

Now, he has decided that sexual segregation ought to become the norm in our schools!!!

OK – I had better stop now – I am just so angry, I cannot put a coherent sentence together.  Let me just say:  fixing our broken school system – but for boys only – is so evil, I don’t know where to start my chain of insults!!!  Sorry.

Still …

A person’s a person – no matter how small!!!

Or, how female!!!

Posted in atheism, education, freedoms, immigrants, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Section 13(1) and Aspergers

October 7, 2009 — xanthippa

OK – this is a topic that people who know me have had to listen to me rant on and on and on….

And, I have tried to write it up – and have at least 18 drafts to prove it…

Because… this is something SOOO IMPORTANT that it deserves the most perfectest write up ever!

Because… this shows an internal inconsistency in the Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code – the ‘Hate Speech’ bit!

It clearly demonstrates that Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself!!!

That, if I my layman’s understanding of our legal system holds, would render the whole thing illegal.  After all, a law may not contravene itself, may it?

Yesterday, I got a comment on my last post, which said exactly the same thing I had been ranting on and on about.  (The comment, not the post – well, the post, too, but that is implied.)

Actually, I read it out loud to my husband, who thought I was reading my words, so close was the sentiment!

Hi Xanthippa.

Your blog has got me thinking… Perhaps we Aspies particularly resent censorship boards like Canada’s because we are used to “saying it like it is”, speaking the truth (as we see it) bluntly and plainly, and not being stopped by thin-skinned people taking offence. Aspies can’t detect _likely_ offence in advance, and if we played it safe and avoided all _possible_ offence, we’d never say anything!Whereas those who support Canada’s state censorship system are probably neurotypicals who are good at treading their way carefully, taking cues from context. They have picked up, for example, that joking about assassinating President Bush is “brave dissent” while joking about assassinating President Obama is “racist hate speech” that will get you visited by the FBI.

Aspies like to have the rules laid out clearly, neutrally and consistently. They/ we don’t like implications, winks and nods, and “It just is, okay?!” So you get someone like Ezra Levant (almost certainly an Aspie) asking why the Emperor has no clothes, why Canada’s censorship rules are applied differently to Christians and Muslims, and a lot of people regard him with distaste: he’s rude, he’s offensive, he’s loud, he’s rocking the boat, he “just doesn’t get it”.

Perhaps Section 13 could be struck down as discriminating on basis of a disability, do you think?

That is exactly correct!  I’ve been ranting on this for years!

*  * *

Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code is the ‘hate speech’ section which has, lately, been applied to silence people with unpopular views.  The key bit of the wording is that a person is forbidden from communicating anything which could potentially give offense to someone or a group.  No, not ‘just anyone’ – only people who are members of ‘protected groups’.

In other words, it is illegal, in Canada, to communicate anything that might offend people, based on their sex, race, religion, disabilities, sexual orientation, and so on, or stigmatize them, or is likely to increase ‘general hate’ against them.

*  *  *

Now, let us look at  the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome (an Autism-spectrum disorder):

Aspies For Freedom (an Asperger’s support group) lists, among others:

  • Criterion A. Severe and sustained impairment in social interaction
  • Criterion C. The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

About.com tells us that

“The essential features of Asperger’s Disorder are severe and sustained impairment in social interaction…

“…  The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Dr. Leo Kanner, a psychiatrist at Hopkins and a recognized authority on Asperger, wrote in ‘Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry with Practical Neurology’ about ‘Aspergers’:

It is characterised by impairments in reciprocal social interaction and communication

I could go on, in a typically Aspie obsessive manner… but, you get the picture.  Aspies (people with Asperger’s Syndrome usually prefer the nomicker ‘Aspies’ – it is less cumbersome) have a neurological disorder, which prevents us from having ‘normal’ social interactions.

We cannot tell when we are boring you.

We cannot tell when what we are saying is offensive to you.

We cannot tell if people are so fed up with us, they are about to loose their patience and beat us to a bloody pulp, because we have just said something they consider ‘insensitive’ or ‘offensive’.

We think the rest of the world ought to get over themselves and their stupid emotionalism and its burdensome public display and grow up!  (And get some logic, while they’re at it.)

We also lack the ability to ‘believe’.

Oh, we can accept rules – and love to adhere to them scrupulously.  So, Aspies CAN follow religions.  We just can’t believe in them.

We can take some God(s)’s existence ‘as given’ or ‘pre-defined parameter’ – but not as an ‘article of faith’ to be ‘believed’.  There IS a difference.

Despite what some clinicians think, we CAN accept ‘alternate realities’ (make-believe) – as long as it is presented as a concept (not ‘truth’ – but a ‘different game’) and is internally self-consistent.  That  is why we love Spock (the first ‘real’ Aspie character on TV who was not a villain – at least, not intended to be perceived as a villain, even though his appearance followed an ‘evil-man’ archetype) and why we CAN accept alternate reality rules.

But we recognize them to be ‘non-real’.  And – naturally – we say so.  Especially when somebody is wrong and thinks it is ‘real’.

It is our responsibility to educate them!  To do any less would be insulting to them…

We are especially good at pointing out internal inconsistencies – within belief systems, ‘holy’ books (scriptures), the behaviour of clerics vs. the tenets of their faith and all kinds of things like that.  Good and persistent!

And THAT is why so many Aspies earn the wrath of religious people….. because we will never understand why it is OK to correct someone’s misconceptions regarding physic or mathematics, but not regarding bronze-age myths and demonstrable reality.

Actually – any age myths…

With our lack of social skills and inability to ‘take things on faith’ – both conditions are documented as being biologically based and not something we can just change because we want to – we are BOUND to offend a lot of people. Or, so I am told.  Especially with all that religious nonsense!  And I mean NON-SENSE!!!  As defined…

(Is this a good demonstration?  I hope so… I was trying to convey the understanding of our internal thought processes….)

I suppose it would be a fair parallel to describe Aspies as ‘offensiveness-deaf‘!  And, this disability is a well documented, recognized medical condition.

*  *  *

Ah – but our constitution states that no person shall be discriminated against on the grounds of a medical disability!

Would it be legal to pass a law that penalizes people for not standing when the National Anthem is played – even if they were deaf and did not hear it?  Or of they were a paraplegic or otherwise disabled and unable to stand?

Would passing such laws, which punish people because they have a disability, be tolerated if that disability were anything other than Asperger’s Syndrome?

NO!  IT WOULD NOT!

We would not tolerate such laws!  And, our constitution specifically forbids discrimination on these grounds!

Yet, Section 13(1) is a blatant and shameful discrimination against people who have a medical disability which prevents us from knowing when we are likely to ‘give offense’!!!

*  *  *

OK – this is where I tie it all together….bear with me, please, I’m almost there.

1.  Section 13(1) makes it illegal to communicate anything which ‘is likely to offend’ or stigmatize a group or individuals (on ‘protected grounds’), or expose someone to hate.

2.  One such ‘protected ground’ is ‘medical disability’.

3.  Asperger’s syndrome is a medical disability, whose defining characteristic is an inability to successfully socially interact with others:  in other words, rude and offensive behaviour is an invountary symptom (and even a diagnostic criterion) of this medical condition.  As such, Aspies cannot tell if they are ‘likely to offend’, just as deaf people cannot hear and react to sounds, or just like people cannot significantly change the amount of pigment in their skin!  By just existing, we are ‘likely to give offense’!

4.  Therefore, Section 13(1) makes it a criminal offense to live with this specific medical disability!

5.  By criminalizing our very existence, Section 13(1) seriously stigmatizes Aspies, simply because of how we were born! It is very likely that we, as an identifiable and protected group, will be stigmatized and we are likely to be exposed to hate, as a direct result of the existence of Section 13(1).

6.   However, Section 13(1) forbids anyone or anything to stigmatize a group on protected grounds, or expose anyone to hate – and having Asperger’s IS a ‘protected ground’!

7.  That is an internal inconsistency.

8.  Therefore, Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself.

Q.E.D.

    Posted in Aspergers, atheism, ignosticism, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 12 Comments »

    Help an ex-Muslim! Please…

    September 15, 2009 — xanthippa

    Criss says it all:

    The petition is here.

    Posted in atheism, freedoms, immigrants, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

    Pat Condell: ‘Children of a Stupid God’

    May 31, 2009 — xanthippa

    Here is Pat Condell’s latest video, ‘Children of a Stupid God’.  Whatever your belief-system (or lack thereof), he does bring up an intersting perspective…and a few good points for thought:

    Posted in atheism, debate, human nature, Humour, ignosticism, philosophy, religion, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

    Pat Condell: ‘Free speech is sacred’

    March 20, 2009 — xanthippa

    Posted in atheism, freedoms, ignosticism, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »
    « Older posts
    Newer posts »