A Voice for Me/n – I Cannot Respect You and the People Who Associate With You

You are judged by the people you associate with. If your friend is a thief and you regularly protect your friend’s thieving habit then you are abetting the theft. Now that’s a crime. Free speech is a lovely little thing. Freedom of Speech however comes with Responsibility of Speech.

You are free to say anything you like. You are however responsible for what you say. You cannot claim to be a defender of free speech when you refuse to take responsibility for it. Some places have strict rules with regards to free speech and free speech within context. Even bastions of free speech like /b on 4Chan have “rules and limits”. The limits to free speech exist to encourage dialogue because dialogue without rules is what we call shouting loudly.

I cannot respect the people who associate with A Voice for Men. Every week they manage to do something worse than the last and all I can remember are the quotes from the people who said that it’s “Free Speech” and “Not Everyone Is Like That” and that “I should give people a chance to prove that they aren’t callous misogynists”. [Read more...]

Clearly a Figment of your Imagination

You guys should not eat so much cheese.

Ralph Barker’s argument is stupid. It assumes atheism is a categorical statement against the known truth rather than a statement that there is “probably no god since there is no evidence and that following a religious faith is a pointless waste of time, resources and intelligence”.

Ralph Barker’s argument is based on a massive series of assumptions. That a god exists and it is the christian flavour of the judeo-christian god. And it is based on this assumption he thinks we don’t exist and that we live in sin. My life is no more or less sinful than the average “good christian”. Infact considering the christian fascination with all things sexual and the effective fetishisation of virginity and abstinence, I am probably more holy by their standards than most of their followers and many of their priests.

Any person who quotes a verse from their religious text as a solid argument is an idiot and should be treated as such. This entire culture where we don’t call things what they are is pretty daft considering people like Ralph Barker have audiences.

If one looks down a microscope or a telescope and sees the “wonders of creation” and happily thinks to himself “It’s so beautiful the work of our mighty Tlaloc! I must remember to sacrifice a baby to him!” then that person clearly hasn’t grasped the significance of what he saw. A scientist (and there is a reason a lot of atheists are scientists) would want to find out precisely how these phenomena occur. And it is there something even more wonderful than a magic being is seen. That these processes are entirely natural and a rational understanding of these processes will allow us to utilise them to our benefit. The problem religious people have with science is that science explains things and it is hard to create a reasonable doubt for the existence of something as ludicrous as a god around people who keep explaining the function and mechanism of existence.

If you believe that the world was created 7000 or so years ago in 7 days by Jehovah, then you deny human existence. Humanity is not defined by our genome but by what we are. Yes, if we create a sufficiently advanced AI or come into contact with another sapient and sentient life form, then you can apply the concept of humanity to them. So we regard our ancestors as “human” too. Human tools have existed for nearly 3 to 4 million years indicating our development from sharpened rock to Internet. We wouldn’t have come this far if we assumed “god did things” and we certainly insult our origins as the most intelligent life form on the planet if we attribute our success to “kowtowing to magic beings” rather than “hardwork and toil”.

Atheists wouldn’t give any fucks about Ralph’s religion if Ralph’s religion did not go out of it’s way to enforce it’s will on other people. The so called war on religion was not started by atheists, it was started by those who believe in gods who try to undermine the ideals of a secular society where all men are equal irrespective of what they believe in. Also it’s a bit hypocritcal coming from a christian whose entire faith is based on conversion of people of other faiths to christianity by actively denying the existence of false gods.

I don’t believe in ghosts and goblins, so I actively campaign against ghost hunter series and the like too. However those shows just con stupid people out of time. Ghost shows aren’t running around trying to make Ghosts a viable alternative to decomposition in biology. Ghost shows aren’t trying to rewrite history. Finding Bigfoot isn’t trying to get sasquatch put up as a genuine species. These are muppets running around while other muppets watch shaky camera work. Hell many atheists routinely mock psychics.

God Said There are No Atheists? In which case, clearly I am a figment of your imagination. And you should totally send me your bank details.

Evolution and Vaccination

It’s no secret that a lot of the anti-vaccine movement exists due to the ignorance of parents who need to make decisions with their child’s healthcare. Anti-Vaccine portrays themselves as scientists when they are not often using acronyms and official sounding degrees and lab coats to make themselves seem like they are professionals.

They work by creating unreasonable doubt and by portraying their qualifications as equal to a medic when in reality they generally follow incredibly outdated medical practices and ideas that are laughably out dated in a science that is moving at a pretty hefty pace. They lie and portray deadly diseases as “harmless” and easily controlled by nutrition, vitamins and magic water.

They show a complete lack of understanding of statistics, probability and actual terminology and appeal to ideas like “souls”, “harmony”, “balance” and “energy”. Words which mean very little in terms of the biochemical machine that is your body and are even more vague when one asks them to describe a medical condition.

Today we deal with Vactruth‘s article by Bunny St. Marie on Vaccine Resistant Pathogens. And it is basically a collection of incredibly daft ideas that need to be dismantled comprehensively lest I be accused of quote mining and taking ideas out of context.

You would probably laugh at the absurdity of it—dangerous mutant invaders, seemingly by stealth, plotting a massive attack against the human race.

But, what if you discovered those mutants would be invisible to the naked eye? Would you still have a hard time believing such a story? Believe it or not, many scientists have begun warning us about that exact scenario, with one exception: Microscopic viruses and bacteria are actually playing the roles of the mutants.

Evil Mutants!

Real Mutants

Medically speaking we are all mutants. Every single goddamn one of us is a mutant and has at some point had a mutation. Using such language in a medical explanation is fraught with peril since we are confusing what the word mutant means.

A mutant is any organism with a genetic variation from the fused original genome created at fertilisation. It can either be expressed as a local mutation (eg. Cancer) or a silent mutation (eg. Most People will probably have one cell with a silent mutation) or a germ line mutation (your kids will express a mutation.)

The best example of a mutant is the good olde humble wheat plant.

It’s a single and simple mutation that made this plant one of the earliest domesticated crops and it’s a mutation that’s common to all crop plants. Tame wheat has a mutation that prevents it from spreading it’s seeds. It does not shed it’s seeds and they ripen on the plant.

Now normally this is a massive disadvantage except, if there is a species out there that actively promotes this mutation. Spreading it across the world and actively killing individuals of this species that do not show the mutation. Now this mutation would be an advantage. Which is why there are more tame wheat plants out there than wild wheat. We actively protect wheat from predators, disease and spread the seeds hence the mutation is common.

Not so scary now right? The usage of mutant is to scare the fuck out of people. It’s a calculated accusation made by Bunny to scare people into thinking of these mutants as the twisted warped individuals because she is trying to imply that vaccination somehow causes mutation. And she does this with the grace and panache of a blancmange.

I like my mutants like I like my scotch, 13 – 18 years old, green and ninja.

The simple fact is this: You have been advised by your doctor to rely on vaccines as a defense against microscopic invaders.

We actually encourage a variety of defences against infection ranging from “Washing your hands” to “Vaccination” to “Pasteurisation” to “Cooking Your Goddamn Turkey

But what happens when a pathogen manages to outsmart such pharmaceutical measures? We may be finding out sooner than expected. Here’s why.

Pathogens such as bacteria and viruses cannot outsmart anything because they don’t have brains. They are evolving. The mechanism of their evolution is random and driven by their massive reproduction rates. They aren’t trying to “outsmart medical technology” they are doing so to survive. If they do not evolve they die. Smallpox is an example of a pathogen that didn’t evolve. Polio is an example of one that probably won’t evolve by the time we make it extinct. The nature of these viruses was to affect only humans and that specificity was both the reason for their success and the reason for why vaccination is so succesful against them. 

Then there were the recent measles outbreaks occurring in both the U.S.A. and Canada. Sporadic outbreaks of meningitis also have been reported around the globe over the last couple years. Just this year, an outbreak of meni
ngitis was reported in the States. [1]

The recent measles outbreak in the USA is mainly seen in unvaccinated groups of people as the vaccination rate of both countries had dropped quite heftily due to the efforts of anti-vaccine and autism activists who believe in the MMR link. This produced a fairly hefty fall in vaccination rates allowing for the reoccurence of measles.

A quick check shows that between 2007 to 2008 in the Israeli Measles outbreak majority affected were orthodox and hassidic jews who do not vaccinate. France’s low measles vaccination rate resulted in roughly 7000 cases in the first three months of 2011.

And lest we forget. Measles in the DRC has killed 1145 children due to the low vaccination and famine conditions but I am sure Bunny will blame the famine more than the vaccination rate and indeed claim that it’s a perfectly harmless disease (If you are lucky enough to be born in the first world where fancy medicine prevents you from dying.)

And the most telling statistic is that in 2011 the CDC stated that it had 118 cases. Of 118 cases, 105 were not vaccinated. (89%). The US outbreak is actually rather small since the anti-vaccination and the fear of MMR isn’t as hefty as seen in the UK where there were are roughly a 1100 cases a year and rising due to the lack of vaccination due to anti-vaccine fear mongers. Every single case, more people who were unvaccinated were affected than those who were vaccinated.

And this is without her first source which is from here. The vaccine we give is for pneumococcus (Streptococcus Pneumoniae) which can cause meningitis. The outbreak is for meningococcus (Neisseria Meningitidis). They are entirely different diseases caused by entirely different bacteria.

The issue that a lot of people have is the assumption that all bacteria are the same. The difference between these two bacteria is enormous. As wide an evolutionary gap as ant and human. They both belong to the kingdom of bacteria but diverge at the phylum level at a fundemental scale. Pneumococcus is a gram positive bacteria while Meningococcus is a gram negative bacteria. It may sound petty and small but it’s a massive and monsterous difference to anyone who has read about microbiology. To mistake the two is not a fundemental error when dealing on organisms on this scale. It is idiocy.



These were both stained with the same staining method and the difference is clear as day since streptococcus forms violet chains of cocci while neisseria does not appearing as pink binary forms. But clearly Bunny didn’t check any of this before making her fallacious claim.

The meningococcus vaccine is a recent invention. It is being rolled out as we speak. We do really want a vaccine against this horrific disease and it’s recent approval still means it hasn’t been widely taken up and it isn’t a compulsary vaccine yet.

As a parent, you are told if your children are vaccinated they are ‘protected’; yet many of the outbreaks have occurred in fully immunized populations. So what’s going on? Some argue outbreaks may have originated from a foreign traveler or possibly from children whose parents chose to exempt them from vaccines. While others feel a far more worrying mechanism is at work. One possibility being common pathogens have mutated and not only become resistant to vaccines, but also potentially more deadly.

No. Many of these outbreaks occured in populations where vaccination rates are shrinking and where many people have lapsed their vaccines or avoided boosters. And bear in mind the UK’s “full vaccinated” rate of measles is the same as the DRC’s mortality rate from measles and you quickly realise how effective vaccination really is. What Bunny has done is tried to portray the American Public as heavily vaccinated while failing to mention that most cases as reported by the CDC (which no doubt she refuses to trust) are from unvaccinated groups or from diseases that people haven’t been vaccinated for.

And a vaccine is not 100%. No one said it was. Nothing is 100%.. You can still catch a disease that you have been vaccinated for, it’s just that it is a lot more unlikely than before.

It’s the equivalent of wearing bullet proof armour in a gun battle. Sure you may not get hit but why take the chance. It is the equivalent of not wearing a seatbelt in a car. Sure you may not get into an accident but why take the chance. You may not get measles but why risk it by not vaccinating. And the statistics were clear on this. At one point everyone got the measles. Not vaccinating will result in a re-establishment of rates. This much is clear in the UK where the number of cases has risen courtesy of the MMR/Autism link lobby and their arch-quack, Andrew Wakefield.

Added to which pertussis is almost unheard of in children and mainly affects older adults and infants as pertussis immunity wears off rapidly even from natural infection (at the same rate as the vaccine) and adults don’t keep up with booster shots.

For example, a particular study published in 2010 mentions the rising increase of whooping cough cases may be caused in part to the use of acellular pertussis vaccines resulting in the adaptation of circulating pertussis strains. [2]

Here Bunny shows a phenomenal ignorance of what the scientific paper is about. In her mind the vaccine somehow mutates the bacteria.

What the study shows is the change in allele frequency in pertussis strains caused by vaccination. There are local antigenic variations and the pertussis vaccine that is currently used is the acellular vaccine (the Whole Cell Vaccine causes a bigger reaction but with greater side effects such as fever as the body recognises the whole bacteria and activates a proper immune response). The acellular vaccine has a lower effectiveness rate (around 75% to 85%) but is preferred due to it’s safety profile.

Now what occured here is that various antigens of the most common strains we
re used in the vaccine to protect against them. Thus leaving the least common strains partially protected or with no protection at all. This results in a prevention of infection by the most common strains which quickly reduce while the least common ones are not affected as much until we reach the situation where the previous common strains have become rarer. As seen in the case wher MT70′s incidence drops below MT10 in the UK due to MT70′s usage in the vaccine.

What Bunny is demonstrating is a phenomenal ignorance of how evolution works. You don’t evolve to meet a threat. You evolve over generations rather  than as a single individual and if you can survive a change of environment you survive, if you cannot you go extinct. What we see here is allele frequency alteration due to the arrival of the vaccine and the reduction in possible prey for the common strain.

Another study led by Dr. Frits Mooi suggests whooping cough vaccines are becoming less effective due to certain strains of pertussis adapting, and that these emerging new strains are likely more virulent. Indeed, the epidemiologic data found an association between these new strains and an increased infant mortality rate. [3]

This study into virulence is quite interesting. Basically it boils down to comparing two of the common strains of pertussis and some astute observations. It basically looks at the allele frequency changes of Pertussis Toxin 1 vs Pertussis Toxin 3.

Now basically Pertussis Toxin is not normally excreted by the bacteria. There is a disadvantage to wanton usage possibly a negative metabolic effect making toxin 3 rarer pre-vaccine. The paper mentions this. However in a host they both produce the toxin. However after vaccination the incidence of pertussis toxin 1 went down while toxin 3 went up. The net number of cases fell but there were still incidents.

The paper points out that those with Toxin 3 are more virulent than Toxin 1. Not virulent enough to affect a fully healthy adult with a vaccine but sufficient to create a latent or silent infection. And then he points out what the cause of the increased rate of infection is.

Dr. Mooi points out that the main reason for this is PTx 3 has a immunosuppresant effect and in order to overcome this increased virulence the body requires a longer period of time to produce the necessary antibodies allowing for the potential spread due to the increased efficacy of the toxin and the increased production. PTx 1′s lower virulence means that it is much more easily killed off by the immune system. Dr. Mooi points out that the rise in PTx3 has three main causes.

Firstly, vaccine quality varies across the board. The quality of vaccine varies. He recommends that vaccine quality be improved as he noted that recently vaccinated children do not catch pertussis of either type. Their immune system responds heavily.

Secondly, the current vaccines do not produce antibodies against PTx3 and it’s increased anti-immune effect. Addition of antigens from PTx3 and 1 would improve the vaccines.

Thirdly, adult vaccination is low and most adults are partially immunised resulting in longer response times and spread of PTx3 allele variants.

In short? Improve the Goddamn Vaccine and get adults boosters is this man’s conclusion. Bunny’s is Do Not Vaccinate At All. Fuck the half a million or so people a year the Pertussis vaccine saves. We shouldn’t vaccinate at all! That way we can lose more children to the disease (roughly 80% of pertussis cases are in the 0-5 age group) and not have to worry about an increased virulence that means nothing to someone who is vaccinated. Never mind the fact that we can prevent this by improving vaccination.

What’s even more shocking is, according to the CDC, vaccinated children may actually be putting vulnerable loved ones at risk! A study published in 2000 found that vaccinated children are not only at risk for contracting pertussis after 4 to 5 years, but also may play a role in transmitting pertussis to vulnerable loved ones via asymptomatic (or silent) infection. [4]

The natural immunity for pertussis also wanes after 4 to 5 years. This is why we use booster shots. If you miss your boosters you can spread the disease. You don’t gain a life long immunity from pertussis and we specifically mention that you do not gain such an immunity and require regular boosters in order to remain immune.

And it does point out that the reduced immunity in those who were vaccinated but missed boosters and recommends booster shots.

This isn’t an isolated problem with pertussis, either. Scientists also speculate about measles becoming resistant to vaccines.

This isn’t a resistance to vaccines so much as a very minor latent infection rather than coughing so hard you break a rib. The problem is Bunny is embellishing the truth. Basically? Pertussis (a bacteria) has had an allele frequency shift to a more virulent allele PTx3 which provides better spread due to it’s more toxic nature. This produces latent infections which spread in the short period of time it takes to mobilise an immune response and is mainly seen in vaccinated adults who lack the full vaccine and can be corrected via the introduction of the PTx3 antigen to the acellular vaccine and by keeping up regular booster shots even in adults to prevent the spread of this latent infection (sub-clinical) to infants.

Now here is the thing. A tiny experiment. Go get a bottle of coke and a white sheet of paper. Take a small mouthful. Now cough before you swallow. Aim it at a white sheet of paper. Notice the massive spray of coke on the white sheet.

Now imagine a disease spread by coughing. For example… Pertussis. Can anyone tell me why sub clinical pertussis with no cough is less likely to spread as much and as far than pertussis with a cough?

I am sure anyone can because we regularly deal with the Rhinovirus (cold). We know that it spreads via cough and via the air yet Bunny clearly thinks pertussis spread remains the same in such a situation.

A research team led by Dr. Claude Muller from the National Health Laboratory in Luxembourg has reported circulating strains of measles in Africa developing a significant level of resistance to the vaccines currently being used. [5]

This  article specifically says in the first few lines that the reason why resistant strains develops is poor vaccination. This is traditional anti-vaccine failure of written comprehension to go with their incredibly shoddy grasp of mathematics and their even worse grasp of science. The resistance is being caused by people like Bunny and her anti-vaccine movement.

Mainly her more deadly ilk like those alternative medicine practitioners in Africa who fight against local vaccination schemes. I must point out again the population of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and that of the UK are roughly the same at around 60 million and the UK has a rather high measles rate of around 1100 cases a year while the DRC with it’s patch vaccination has one where the mortality alone is around 1000 cases a year with nearly 100,000 cases a year. This article only emphasises that the actual problem in Africa and indeed pla
ces like the UK is the anti-vaccine stance with particular emphasis on the uptake of the MMR vaccine.

But the evidence of morphing pathogens doesn’t end there. A new study has implicated evolving bacteria with the emergence of vaccine-resistant pneumococcus strains, the same bacteria responsible for causing pneumonia and meningitis infections. [6]

Actually… If you read the article it points out that this isn’t an effect of the vaccine but a quirk of the bacteria which produces resistance to normal immune systems which is why you can repeatedly get infected from pneumococcus. This is a normal occurrence that the bacteria does even when there is no vaccination.This isn’t even the same things as the other things. This is goddamn conjugation which is an entirely different process from the previous allele frequency changes. This is best explained via the fertility factor

And this specific issue has more to do with antibiotic immunity than vaccine resistance. And this is where Bunny plows on.

These troubling findings are very reminiscent of concerns that were raised after the over-prescribing of antibiotics. Scientists warned early on that over-use and failing to finish ones prescription could lead to bacterial resistance. [7]

No. These are nothing like the overprescription of antibiotics. Vaccines function by priming your immune system by mimicking an infection without the negative effect. Antibiotics work by affecting bacteria directly. And yes… failing to finish your prescription can lead to resistance but guess which group of people routinely tell people to quit taking antibiotics. It’s certainly the group of people whose only qualification is that they managed to have a child and who assume that this landmark achievement allows them insight into the function of a human being that medical personnel do not.

Many years later, after the emergence of antibiotic resistant super-bugs like MRSA, both physicians and patients are now beginning to re-examine their approach to illness. Isn’t this similar to what is happening with vaccines? Consider this. Americans are the most vaccinated population in the world.

Actually. We can treat MRSA. Vancomycin, Ceftroline, linezolid, Daptomycin and Teicoplanin all show activity against MRSA and combination therapies show a lot of effect. In addition we have two new classes of antibiotics (over Linezolid) undergoing testing including a 5th generation cephalosporin, dalbavancin, iclaprim and neomonacin.

In addition we are looking into defensin – 1, cannabinoids, platensimycin and hydrogen peroxide dressings. Oh and we are also looking into phage therapy which is entering human trial stages and shows a 95% effectiveness rating.

So yeah. We do cure MRSA, it mainly harms people who are heavily sick (And no it’s not hospital acquired. 85% of cases come from outside the hosptial) or have conditions like diabetes where their high blood sugar helps the bacteria grow.

The physician’s re-examination of methodology due to MRSA is the use of multiple drugs to treat diseases and insisting that the patient finishes their antibiotics and not listen to anti-medical luddites. The argument being made is that we shouldn’t have treated all those sore throats

Here’s the shocking reality: Children following the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule will be injected with approximately 115 vaccine antigens, and that’s just within the first two years of life! [8]

Oh my! Antigens! 115 of them! An antigen is mainly made up of proteins and polysaccharides and their associations with each other and with lipids and nucleic acid. These are any such substance recognised by the body’s immune system.

Within seconds after birth the baby’s immune system is exposed to thousands of antigens in the bacteria of the world. Within an hour it has taken it’s first feed and is exposed to millions of antigens in the milk of it’s mother. The colostrum or first milk is laden with antibodies. These antibodies are however foreign to the baby and are recognised as such and destroyed. The baby begins to produce antibodies to these antibodies. There are millions of them in each feed the baby takes.

Every single surface, every single touch and every single breath of air contains bacteria and viruses that the baby is exposed to in the thousands at best and you really thing 115 antigens over 2 years means anything? Our immune system deals with assaults on it every second. A 115 antigens is nothing in one go. This is spread out over two years. And indeed this ignores all the repeat doses. It’s a very naive approach to the issue and assumes that our body can only deal with one pathogen at a time. The way immune systems work particularly when vaccines are involved is that they process all the antigens simultaneously. Since there is no pathogen load to worry about there is no disease and the body is not strained. Basically? Macrophgages consume the antigens and present them to naive T-Cells which produce a variety of antigen equivalent antibodies. When a match is found the body shifts to producing that type of T-Cell which produces the necessary antibodies. Some of these T-Cells will remain after as memory cells which reactivate in infection and rapidly flood the system with antibodies if the antigen is detected. This isn’t a conveyor belt.

Often in a real infection the infective bacteria will produce multiple antigens and the body will produce multiple antibodies to these. By Bunny’s logic we wouldn’t be able to cope with such an event.

In my opinion, this is an outrageous amount. Similar to over-prescribing antibiotics, it seems logical to step back and evaluate the consequences of such a thing as over-vaccination, and whether vaccination mandates are truly achieving the desired effects, or whether our children are slowly falling prey to newly emerging forms of historical illnesses.

In Bunny’s Opinion comprehension is not a valid skill and neither is a basic grasp of science or mathematics. In her opinion as a lay person? In her opinion as someone who doesn’t understand medicine at all? In her opinion as an individual who cannot explain how disease spreads? Or how immune systems work? Pray explain why should we take her opinion on the subject matter?

I wouldn’t dream of telling NASA how to do their job. You would have to be a madman to ask me to fix your car, and I would have to be just as mad to claim that I could fix it. I know my limitations as a human being. It’s why I would hire a plumber if my plumbing went wrong. It’s why I prefer my house to be wired up by an electrician rather than some yahoo who claims to know what he is doing. And it’s why taking medical advice to someone whose only qualification is that she has achieved something that most women of the planet will achieve is incredibly stupid.

It is people like her who are guilty of the foolishness of Speaking as a Mother. Her assumption is that being a parent grants you innate knowledge of human biol
ogy and medicine which entitles her to speak on the subject. And it irks me since she is surrounded by a coven of sycophants who basically feed her delusion that she can make healthcare decisions regarding her children without any grasp of the subject material. Actually, it’s her children. For all I care she can believe in all the magic water and fairy wings she likes as long as it’s just them she is screwing over. What irks me the most? Is that she is considered a voice of healthcare when she cannot tell the difference between a gram negative and gram positive bacteria and that she is encouraged to stand up and give medical advice that she will never ever be held responsible for. If you follow her advice and your child falls sick or dies then there is nothing you can do. She is not responsible for her stupidity. It’s not her that pays the butcher’s bill, it’s people like your doctor who have to clean up her mess when things go wrong.

Bunny St. Marie only exists because vaccines eliminated major diseases making them a thing of the past. To her they are as legendary as dragons. Only diseases are real and still are around and they can come back if our vaccination rate drops sufficiently as we have seen across Europe. Her advice is functionally detrimental to your health. It is encouraging you to face down dragons by being a virgin, wrapping yourself up in meat and barbeque sauce while wearing wooden armour soaked in oil. 

Your survival rate goes up if you are two days from retirement.

Moshe Averick II – Electric Boogaloo

If a man lies with a man
 as one lies with a woman,
both of them have done what is detestable.
They must be stoned.
Well… If you think it helps.
We continue with Part 2 of dealing with Moshe Averick’s litany of hate constructed of the finest of strawmen

Many of the hundreds of comments posted were thoughtful and insightful, but most were angry and indignant push backs from non-believers who felt I was accusing them of child-molestation. Many also charged that it was unfair and misleading of me to cite statements from atheistic philosophers of “ethics” that seemed to indicate that there was nothing inherently immoral about pedophilia. The most common complaints were (a) that I falsely implied that these philosophers approved of pedophilia and (b) I was guilty of presenting a sweeping generalization that atheists have no moral values.

Apparently I got it all wrong when I missed the subtext behind his post titled “Paedophilia is Next on the Slippery Slope“. Oh well that’s alright then! I must have completely misunderstood the part which implied that my moral code accepted child and animal abuse and was somehow inferior to those of the Torah on which we based the utter foundation of western society. Now if you would excuse me, I need to go tell my slaves to bring in that virgin I captured when I exterminated her village after which, I shall go stone some gays. 

Atheists certainly have values and principles that guide their lives and decisions. The word(s) that one chooses to describe or conceptualize these values – morality, ethics, utilitarianism, humanism, etc. – is beside the point; the values are whatever they are, no matter what one calls them.

Sure. Moshe implied that atheists have ideas that allow us to fuck children and animals and explain it away since Moshe forgets that the law against owning slaves is not enforced by the vague threats of divine being but by the angry fist of humanity wielding rules forged by men over time. We forged the equality of man with human blood and that means more than any divine rule since it is something we recognise. Be it the blood of nameless slaves who fought their masters to those who fought for the right to be free in our modern world. Gandhi, King, Havel and Mandela fought because they were human beings, not because of some divine inspiration or magical spark.

Basically what he created was a clumsy attempt at spin in order to imply that atheists are capable of justifying anything and all it needs is a justification. 

I have never called into question the existence of atheistic values; it is the significance of atheistic values that is the crucial issue under discussion. In other words, it is an attack, if you will, on the concept of atheistic ethics and morality, not an attack on atheists themselves.

Of course not! I didn’t call you atheists “dog fucking child rapists”, I merely implied that you theoretically could make love to a dog and a child. Well by his logic he is a genocidal rapist and murderer who is quite prone to keeping women in a locked cage. I mean a potential genocidal rapist and murderer who is quite prone to keeping women in a locked cage. 

I have never accused any of the so-called atheistic philosophers of “ethics” – be it Peter Singer, Joel Marks, Michael Ruse, Michael Tooley, (Sam Harris?) et al – of approving of pedophilia. I accused them of laying the philosophical groundwork that could pave the way for the acceptance and approval of pedophilia.

Except for the fact that the philosophical groundwork for the criminalisation of paedophilia was laid down by humanists rather than religious people who often opposed it since it was quite fashionable to marry children. That and you are implying that we approve of paedophilia. 

The central point of my presentation was that an honest, consistent, and candid articulation of an atheistic worldview must admit that “ethical” values (including those on pedophilia), have no significance at all outside of the heads of those who espouse them. They have no objective reality and any actual significance ascribed to these values is rooted squarely in the human imagination. They are desperate attempts to create the illusion that human actions and decisions have real purpose and meaning. In other words, they are as foolish and illusory as (what the atheist would consider to be) my imaginary notion that God spoke to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai.

The ideas that mankind espouses are much  more than that because we can implement them. The idea is based on the fact that kids cannot understand what sex  means and indeed do not show any inclination towards it bar as a sort of self discovery and vague interest. These are concepts that we as people have discussed in producing a kind of world which we would like to live in. We accept due to the medical knowledge of children and the effect of child abuse that paedophilia is harmful to children. We accept that children by their natural naivety and lack of understanding of what consent means and the repercussions of said consent cannot give it till they reach an age we set at 18 (the end of secondary education) for the most part where they will be legally considered an adult and may make decisions of a nature pertaining to who they sleep with. It’s arbitrary but no more arbitrary than say considering a girl ready to be married immediately after her first period. 

Human beings have an innate sense of compassion, empathy and the ability to love. Human beings also have an innate sense of selfishness, the ability to hate, dominate, and the desire to act with brutality and cruelty. From the viewpoint of the intellectually honest atheist, none of these – in objective reality – are “better” or “worse” than the others. How an individual views these different emotions and drives and chooses to prioritize them are matters of personal preference. If one so desires, he can label these personal preferences with the words moral or immoral; theword that one chooses does not change the fact that they are nothing more than personal preference or perhaps societal conditioning.

Ira. A famous child soldier.

No. Compassion, empathy, love are all learnt expressions. A child brought up to be a cold hearted killer will probably turn out to be a cold hearted killer. The world is filled with children who never had the chance at compassion, empathy and love. There are children brought up with hate, fear and ignorance and many of these children will grow up to hate, fear and be ignorant.

Society is what drives and protects humanity and makes it move forward. The selfish, the haters, the violent and the cruel damage society as a whole. Thus we treat those attributes as undesirable. These are immoral to society because it harms humanity as a whole if we behaved like that since it reduces our ability to survive.

We gain our values from our parents. It is why jewish children are born to jewish parents and hindu children to hindu parents. It’s our parents that teach us the values they value based on their experiences. In time these children grow up building on these values or rearranging them to what they think is important but the core values rarely change. I may not value prayer as much as my mother does. The assumption Moshe makes is that atheists label their values arbitrarily rather than by experiences and what we learn out of them. 

To put it a different way; in an atheistic world, the terms morality and personal preference are identical and interchangeable. Examples: (1) I believe it is immoral to put Down-syndrome babies to death so as not to waste medical resources that could be used more efficiently = Mypersonal preference is that Down-syndrome babies not be put to death…etc (2) I believe it isimmoral to sodomize young boys in a shower room = My personal preference is that young boys not be sodomized in a shower room. In many cases the term societal conditioning could also be substituted: I have been conditioned by my society to believe that young boys should not be sodomized in a shower room.

Hardly. One person’s personal preference can be categorically regarded as immoral simply by logic and debate. I believe it is immoral to kill children with Down’s Syndrome while being bang alongside proper screening of older mothers where Down’s is more common and offering the option of terminating pregnancies.

And my opinion of the sodomisation of young boys relies on one important question. How old are you and how old is the boy? Because see we live in a world of grey, not of black and white. What if you are under the age of consent and have consensual anal sex in a shower with another person (Gender isn’t important, Age is) who is also under the age of consent? You can’t charge them for paedophilia? What if one of them is 17 and the other is 18 (assuming age of consent is 18)? See… that’s the thing. It’s not a simple world we live in.

I assume this is the Penn State Sodomy issue that Moshe is trying to imply? The rules regarding consent and minors applies here. And yes, society dictates that we don’t sodomise underaged people be they boys or otherwise (good grief! Why do religious people think women and straight men don’t enjoy anal sex? If the gays like it does that mean straight people won’t give it a whirl?). In the same way society doesn’t like it when you rape women and puts you in jail rather than asks you to pay a fine and then punishes the woman by forcing her to marry her rapist. 

Here, Ruse is clearly stating that morality is purely subjective. It’s not like he is the first thinker to come to this conclusion. To most believers it’s rather obvious. Bertrand Russell said the same thing: “I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it.” In Russell’s atheistic world all values are subjective and the only thing that could possibly be wrong with wanton cruelty (or pedophilia, for that matter) is that he doesn’t like it. Ruse understands the dilemma quite well. A subjective system of morality is nothing more than a rickety shack with no foundation; it will collapse in the first good wind:

Subjective morality can come to absolute truths. A child by it’s nature is naive, it is a survival mechanic. A human child is blessed with human inquisitiveness but not human judgement because judgement comes with experience. We can TEACH children things. It’s why we encourage schools and education, it’s why children tend to believe in a Santa Claus. Because we teach them maths and science and a relatively harmless little traditional religion called Santa Claus. However if you couple this naivety with an adult trying to take advantage of a child then you have a terrible situation because children cannot give consent. It is a crime of coercion and threat and force.

Therefore it is safe to say that this is rape or the sexual assault on an individual through the use of force or coercion against their will. This will not change. We have quite categorically realised that children cannot be trusted to make decisions regarding what cereal they should eat, and Moshe somehow thinks that any person who willingly listens to Willow Smith is capable of making rational decisions. Kids are great! Don’t get me wrong, I love kids. But they are stupid by the standards of adults and thus are incapable of giving consent. There is an adult case for this kind of action in the abuse of the mentally ill who may not be capable of giving consent for instance in the case of severe mental retardation where the individual cannot comprehend the value and meaning behind sexual consent.

I find this is a more rigorous form of morality than the rules dictated by bronze age Jews. 

We are back where we started fromWe are, of course, right back where we started from. In an atheistic world there is nothing inherently wrong with pedophilia or anything else for that matter

Well that’s the thing. There is no outright condemnation of paedophilia in Abrahamic faith. It is actually a construct of our developing morality. And no, there is nothing inherently wrong about paedophilia. We as humans recognise the harm paedophilia does to children and we recognise the kind of mentality that it requires since we as human beings value our children in a different way to early jewish people. That jewish people themselves have outgrown the morality of their predecessors.

Put it this way. Abraham is a terrible father. I have no respect for such a character who would rather sacrifice their own kid. Do you know who I would put up as a good father figure for a kid?

God has nothing on a man that dedicated to getting his
daughter back. And that’s the kind of father I want to be.
Not one who sells out his kid for fear of his own life.

We all know of course that human preferences are notoriously fickle. What is the deadly, logical outcome of Dr. Marks’ atheistic moral philosophy 

“I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime…if a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? (Jeffery Dahmer) 

What is the point, indeed? If we are not accountable to a higher power for our actions, it only becomes a question of “am I psychologically able to jettison the societal conditioning to which I have been subjected?”  Please ask yourselves the following question: If I had the sexual desires of a pedophile, how  would I view the actions of Jerry Sandusky? If there is one thing we have learned from the horribly bloody history of the 20th century, it is that there is nothing that human beings are not capable of doing.

And now he is implying that we are all going to turn into homosexual rapist murderers? Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer and by definition was crazy. Fobbing off his crimes on the Theory of Evolution is really low. For instance the fact of evolution doesn’t change, that we as a species have no divine spark or magic impetus and are merely a product of natural selection as seen in our DNA in the same way that we are attracted to the earth due to our mass. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Dahmer’s behaviour. This is just another straw man to make atheist seem like closetted homosexual psychopaths rather than normal people who just chose to not believe in a divine god called Yahweh.

And if there is one thing we have learnt about the 20th century is that theism breeds a special kind of hatred that is unmatched. Lest the good rabbi forgets… The Nazis didn’t kill the most people in WW2… (It was the Japanese and their belief in Shinto)

I repeat my original plea to atheists: 

“The choices before us are clear: we will either seek a transcendent moral law to which we will all submit, or we will seek our own personal and societal indulgence. If we turn to God in our quest to create a moral and just world, we have a fighting chance; if not, we are doomed to spiral into the man-made hell of the human jungle.” 

Atheism stands for nothing, signifies nothing, and affirms nothing except for one thing: All the moral aspirations of the advanced primate we call a human being are nothing more than a cosmic joke….and not a very funny one at that.

The God of rape, genocide and slavery is not the god for mankind. It is a god of fear and death. It is a twisted Santa Clause, a Bogeyman. It is nothing but a meme that feeds on your fear of the dark and creates ignorance so that you forever live in the dark. Moshe may want a single divine law but it’s not the divine law of the Hindus or Muslims or Christians that he wants. It’s his specific Judaic law. When any man claims that God’s Law exceeds the morality of Man you are almost guaranteed to see him somehow consider our current world as immoral rather than being one of the most moral societies that has ever existed. 

Human actions and decisions have real meaning. Moshe lives in some fantasy world where he assumes the trappings of human jungle dropped like manna from heaven rather than created by the ideas, the actions and the decisions made by mankind. The decisions I make affect those around me and those who I matter to. Ultimately? In the grand scheme of things? It’s pointless since the entire univer
se will stop one day, but we are alive NOW. The universe is still working now and we have a planet under our feet and everything is relatively golden. And so the actions of mankind at least to other members of mankind matters and that makes these actions even though they are transient and small the most real of all.

Forged in the fires of Mount Pharmacology

I wear a ring, it means nothing to anyone else but it means the world to me. Even if you offered me money beyond compare I would feel uncomfortable parting with the ring. It’s not that it has vaguely established magical powers that make me the Dark Lord of Mordor, it’s just that it was worn by a friend who died. She died thinking she was unloved and alone when she was not and I wear it to remember her and to remember myself that even when I feel alone and small that there exists hope and love and all the good things in the world that we ourselves as human beings have to be in order to make the world better. To me this worthless piece of titanium and artificial diamonds that cost £15 in an Argos means more than anything else in the world, to you it’s just a ring. The value of the ring is relative and indeed transient. It’s original owner didn’t see it as anything but jewellery. To the average person it means nothing, but to me it means something because the actions of another human being make it mean something. And that’s what matters. We all have things that mean this much to us not because we are greedy but because the value of an object isn’t determined purely by monetary value. The feelings that I feel are not made better by the ring having magic powers or being tied to the mystical spirit of my dead friend. There is meaning in an atheist’s world, it’s just not a meaning attributed to mythical creatures. To me the ring is not a memory of her death but an affirmation of her life and the things she loved.

My faith in mankind and human beings changes the world every day so that we live in a place without fear. My friends, family and loved ones drive me to be the best that I can be as a human based on what I think is right. It is not blindly following a set of rules without thinking of the consequence. It is a cogent thought process born out of the idea that all humans are equal.

What does Moshe’s do? 

It’s Time to Try Defying Gravity

This analogy only works if gravity were a social construct and therefore artificial rather than due to physical phenomenon. Redefining gravity has occurred in recent history what with the idea of Newtonian Gravity being replaced by Einsteinian Gravity.

Also… Oww… This video is so stupid my hrain burts…

(I do want to find out what a black market import marriage is…)

Rise of the Neo Luddite – The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men

 We have failed in the education of my generation. We are failing in the education of the next generation. Our parents have an excuse. They grew up in a period where science was by rote, where it was treated as canon and religion. The bible of education, questioning was not encouraged as much as rote memory. That was the old way and this is the new. The ultimate irony of the age of information is that it is also the age of misinformation. Even the greatest invention of mankind (In My Humble Opinion), the internet has been subverted for this. I think we live in such an age of wonder that we have forgotten what the internet is. It is the largest source of information that exists in the universe to our knowledge.  It has seen rise to great sources of information such as Wikipedia and great sources of misinformation such as Natural News or Mercola. It has fought great injustice by forming groups such as Anonymous who have taken on Scientology. It has brought light to the dark.
But it has also let darkness fester where we can see it. And nowhere is it more seen in the Technophile Luddite. Admittedly an oxymoron but this is a real market of individuals. Apple used to sell technology based on how intuitive for new users and how simple it was taking out of the consumer the idea of customisation and the use of the product as a lifestyle choice rather than a competitor (face it Apple fans, it isn’t doing anything a much cheaper Windows/Linux powered PC cannot bar looking pretty). Science has exceeded the average man’s grasp because we have been slack at teaching in schools. It is filled with stereotypes such as the uncool science geek rather than the reality that most people need to be well adjusted to work in science.
No more is this more evident with the rise of the Animal Liberation movement and the whole Vegan Culture. It encompasses a varying mix of three different entities. Animal Rights (AKA PETA and the ALF), Nutritionists (As opposed to the dietician) and Alternative Medicine (Well known purveyors of woo). 

Not to be confused with this man who is a well known purveyor of bullet based ballet

Recently Camille Marino had a discussion with other Animal Lib/Rights members a transcript of which can be seen on her lovely and charming website which is filled with interesting ideas that can lead to a productive and well functioning society where the best laid plans of Mice and Men come to fruition. And the best way to deal with her plans is to dissect her arguments. Rhetoric aside, I think the best way to deal with her movement is to locate the weak points of her argument and shred them mercilessly. We should not take such a threat to our students lying down. It is only a matter of time before one of them (and indeed myself as a member of the medical student community) are targeted by them for personal attacks and it is only a matter of time before they go too far and one of us ends up like Dr. George Tiller (who was murdered after years of threats on doctors who provided late term abortions). Camille has called for deaths and has made threats. We should not ignore them. 

If we had Prep Schools for Pedophiles where students learned the proper art of grooming children in order to successfully kidnap, molest, rape, and murder them, who thinks that mainstream society would allow this “academic curriculum” to continue unimpeded?

No one would allow this curriculum to exist. This is a straw man argument of the most ludicrous calibre because it assumes that there is a benefit to molesting and killing children. There isn’t one. It merely produces very unhappy children as we have seen across the globe. Comparing Animal Experimentation to the Molesting of Children is an insult to the children who have suffered under the hands of paedophiles and to the memories of children murdered. 

In actuality, we have Prep Schools for Industrial Animal Abusers – they’re called universities. And, thus far, we’ve allowed their production lines to churn out sadistic animal tormentors and sociopathic serial killers with reckless abandon! 

We allow the enemy to recruit young people, strip them of their morality, compassion, and integrity and indoctrinate them into their industrial horror show. We only turn our attention to them after they are fully-entrenched professional murderers who are protected in the enemies’ fortified compounds. This is a losing proposition! 

It’s time to start eliminating the students while they are vulnerable. THIS is where every single one of us can start realizing quantifiable gains and victories… each success creates the momentum we need to propel us toward our greatest victory yet – the complete obliteration of the vivisection complex! 

Personally, I want to see the terrorists in bloody white coats buried alive in their dungeons. Is there anybody else here who wants to see the torture industry implode on itself in our lifetimes?

We are portrayed as immoral monsters if we experiment on animals. Our teachers are portrayed as sinister Machiavellian doom lords who enslave animals to produce monsters to do our bidding. (Maybe just Dr. P. Z. Myers. I am sure he has a cyborg giant squid army somewhere…) 

As  drawn by Ethically Challenged

That may be the case or it may not be. I can only speak for myself on this matter. I am sure that there are biologists who gain a pleasure out of experimentation. But I am sure I am the norm and felt deep discomfort with experimentation but realised what I had to do and why
I had to do it.
Camille is calling for us to be targeted and indeed we will be. The next year’s intake of students will be faced by down by her followers. We need to protect them. I would advocate for them to be taught some Facebook safety (Camille has recommended and indeed boasted about tracking us down via the methodology of the internet). Harassment should not be tolerated and should be persecuted to the full extent of the law. In addition we must educate animal handling from an earlier age. We should teach our children where our food comes from and what it looks like.

Okay, the first thing we need to come to terms with is that, with very few exceptions, activists are NOT scientists.  We can mimic some facts here and there and impress each other, perhaps, but the enemy is laughing at us.  THIS is their territory. These are their rules. There is nothing left for us to discuss, debate, or negotiate. 

It is self evident that the atrocities committed against animals in laboratories must end. It is our job to stop it, not debate it with the enemy.  The time for civil discourse has expired!

If students stand up and begin to say “NO! We will not torture animals in the name of science anymore!,” science curriculums will adapt. Academia and the sciences will be forced to evolve. This is the 21st century. If they won’t evolve of their own accord, then we must leave them no choice in the matter.

Of course they are not scientists bar a few. And they know it. Possibly because I have been bugging her about what alternatives she suggest we use and the best she could come up with was a blasé remark about experimenting on the dregs of society (I had to quietly point out that she insulted Jews and Romani and the various Slavs and Black people and the mentally retarded who were used in human experiments particularly during the 1920s to 1950s.) And that we do experiment on humans. It’s part of drug testing and ironically the people who often agree to be tested on are the poor and the desperate.
If students said “that they wouldn’t torture animals anymore” the teachers and indeed their curriculum won’t adapt. I hope it won’t adapt. Ideology must not dictate what science does or else we are not teaching science but applied politics/theology. We would live in a world of Communist Russia where Lysenkoism was taught rather than the bourgeoisie evolution.
The curriculum will grind on with the student not learning the importance of a lesson. In the end it will harm the student’s future career. I know, I have a fear of cockroaches and refused to dissect one in high school and when exams came around I had no clue and didn’t score so well. I will fully admit that I suffered due to my fear. If I had sucked it up and done the damn dissection I would be better off as I would have had a better score and maybe (just maybe) enough to have gotten into a uni back home and not have to study 6 days a week and spend 12 hours a day at uni. The punishment is not to the system but to me.
Academia and Science won’t evolve if you halt experimentation. They will stagnate as the experimentation on animals is the way that we have understood how living systems function. Without that only botany will improve while our understanding of zoology and human biology will stagnate. We have improved experimentation to the point where we are using fewer animals not due to threats from animal liberation but because we are devising clever systems that require fewer animals to produce a quantifiable result. Without experimentation the clever systems will not be incomplete. Incomplete experimentation is dangerous particularly in terms of the production of medication.

Much to my surprise, several vivisectors were compelled to confess their crimes on NIO and two initiated email dialogues with me this past week. While animal abusers will get no absolution from me, there was one glaring common denominator in each of their diatribes and it is hugely important for us to understand this: 

Student vivisectors are plagued with guilt! They are at the crossroads between choosing compassion or sadism. They know that they are torturing an innocent animal but their sociopathic professors encourage them to do so. 

And most naïve young adults do not have the courage to take a stand – not against their professors and not against us!Psychological warfare deployed on the most vulnerable students in the most vulnerable vivisection demographic may hold the master key to our success.

I have no guilt that I have experimented and witnessed experiments on animals. I sleep quite soundly with meat in my stomach.
Compassion for animals is fine, but not at the cost of compassion to humans. The animal liberation movement see the cruelty but not the effect. They don’t see the lives improved by the experiments.
If you are receiving emails from students confessing crimes, then I will ask that these students realise why they learn on animals. Because it’s practical and logical. You can look at a million models and billion diagrams and not one will compare  to the real thing. I have beautiful textbooks on anatomy and not one has compared to physically seeing the organs being pulled from a cadaver and later from a body. The texture tells you a lot. The grainy feel of a smoker’s lung or the hardness of liver cirrhosis cannot be taught by a model. So we dissect humans. Likewise biologists dissect animals. A vet cannot learn his trade without animals. He would not be a very good vet. 

Once we isolate matriculated biology students – and I am encouraging everyone to intercede no later than their junior year – we can have a profound effect on their futures. First, we need to empower them – inform them that they have the ability to make the right choice. A
ppeal to their consciences and emotions. Appeal to their intellect. If a student still aspires to become a professional animal abuser, then s/he should be deemed an enemy combatant and, thereby, forfeits all rights.

 This is an abject threat. It’s no different from saying recant or suffer. And we remember those words to this very day. The day we recant is the day everyone else suffers. The right choice is the stagnation of science, the wrong choice is the productivity of biology saving lives. They aren’t appealing to our intellect, they are trying to scare us into submission. Make us fear for our lives so that we abandon the pursuit of knowledge.

But it does move.

  • We don’t need large groups or elaborate campaigns to achieve our ends – only individual initiative and determination.
  • Enemy students should begin to receive their own home demos.
  • Their neighbors, friends, and communities should be leafleted and warned about their sadistic inclinations.
  • Many students still live at home which makes their parents fully complicit. They should receive demos and visits at their place of employement.
  • The internet is a weapon in the right hands. Email, telephone, fax campaigns can be highly effective at the enemy’s parents’ offices.
  • All public domain information may legally be republished online and in your communities.
Camille lays down the tactics she intends. It’s similar to such groups as Al-Qaeda. Small individual groups operating under a greater banner. A franchise of terror (as opposed to fried chicken). If one group does something insane and fails they can be denounced while if one succeeds they will be lauded as a success for the whole entity. She aims to hit students in their own societies terrorising their families and neighbours an alienating them. Knowing they cannot terrorise a biology lab (So wait, if we hire Sally the Vivisectionist you will protest at a higher rate than before?) beyond what they already do without breaking the law they are forced to move the harassment tactics to friends and family.
This is similar to the Westboro Baptist Church. And using tactics similar to scientologist’s “fair game”. And the problem is public domain. We need to protect our information. Facebook once upon a time was a student driven system for networking of students. Now it’s a place for us to post funny captions of cats. We forget that we give out a lot of information on it. We should encourage students to move their profiles out of public domain and into private.

We are going to Save the Students and stop them from becoming Vivisectors. We know we are going to be most effective in determining the demographic that is the least mind screwed by the enemy, that is they have not picked up a knife yet. We believe juniors fit this description, with a short visit to the youngest students to let them know they can opt out of all dissection even though no one tells them this. If no one obeys, no one’s in charge!Subversion, Subversion, Subversion:

  • To make the students question their loyalty to the professors who are teaching them.
  • To let them know they have power to refuse to cut.
  • To show them their teachers are lying about how they can fill their dreams with out animal experimentation.
  • To expose the sickness and evil that their teachers are masking behind science.
 Since when has scientific curriculum been decided by the students? That would be like me standing up and declaring that I don’t wish to learn Gynaecology because being a vagina doctor is a woman’s job. I would get laughed at. Or worse… Failed if I refused to attend those lessons.
1.      Professors aren’t loyal to you. They are there to teach. If you do not want to be taught then they won’t teach you. However if what you don’t know is important then it will come back to haunt you.
2.      You can refuse to cut. I have refused to dissect a cockroach because I am scared of roaches (yeah… I sat through an autopsy of a decomposing guy and then went out to eat a sandwich while my peers retched and I think roaches are gross). It’s just that you will either lose marks of your final grade either by omission of practical credit or by not learning something

April: How do you determine weak ones

Camille: The weak ones are the isolated alienated science bookworms, Who’s never been out from under their mother’s skirt. You can see them a mile away. 

Gingie: something like, how can we tell who the weak ones are? 

April: right, that’s what i meant 

Sia: I have found weak ones abuse animals

Psst… That’s a movie stereotype. Most biologists are pretty healthy and have to be well balanced. It’s hard to give a lecture if you are isolated and it’s hard to do research if you don’t work well in groups.

Amongst all the scientists, biologists would be the most outdoorsy type (since biologists often have to work outdoors).

Agatha: WE cannot debate science- but maybe have a call for debates? have knowledgeable students debates. other- anything to establish a line and make students choose a side? 

Camille: Absolutely, Aggie 

April: Science is actually debatable, lets not treat it with irrefutable

So let’s debate. We are willing to talk and to explain why we do things this way. However we do know that it’s not us who is making the threats.

I am willing to talk and indeed explain how things work within reason. Camille is not. Camille does not have the solution and is infact part of the problem of animal research. That people born of privilege and no perspective will think that the value of a human being is the same of a lab rat. Knowledge is important and knowing what our juniors and indeed future is in for is vital. 

Rights of the Silent Majority – The Peacock and the Strawman

 On an evening last year in February, Neetu Solanki was travelling home in a conservative west Delhi neighbourhood via auto-rickshaw (a three wheeled equivalent of a taxi in India) when she was harassed by some young men. Her response was to stop the rickshaw and grabbed one of the young men’s collars in order to yell at him. She was picked out because she was wearing western clothes, a top and a pair of hipster jeans revealing a peacock tattoo on her lower back rather than a more traditional salwaar kameez.
In India there is an amusingly named crime called Eve Teasing, named after the biblical idea that women cause men to sin by their lack of modesty. It involves men usually in groups harassing women with inappropriate comments and often very inappropriate groping. A crime born out of gender bias, a lack of sexual equivalence and the objectification of women. Yesterday a woman leapt from a moving train to avoid “eve teasing” losing her leg under the wheels of the train. 
Neetu Solanki was found dead on the 11th of February with her throat slit and dumped into a suitcase which was left at New Delhi’s railway station. The tattoo became a talking point around which a string of tales about her love life, her dress sense, her habit of returning home late from her job at a call centre. The man she was allegedly cohabiting was missing and believed to be the suspect. India is a large nation and chances are he has gotten away with it.
Neetu Solanki is what a lot of Indians regard as wrong with today’s generation. The fear is that women are becoming like “Western Women”. To the conservative older generation of the middle classes it is a shot across the bows. Women prefer jeans and tops to their traditional outfits and even their traditional outfits bare a lot more skin than they used to as fashion marches on. India is seeing the beginnings of a sexual revolution with couples beginning to cohabit more. Arranged marriages are dying in number and even now the modern arranged marriage is akin to the Jewish Match Maker where the boy and girl meet for dates rather than the traditional idea of the event. Some Indians even have sex outside marriage. Indian women even have come to understand that sex can be fun.
One of the biggest Indian authors in India is someone I would consider a feminist. Shoba De, writes trashy chick lit, a world of crummy plots, gaping plot holes and a lot of sex. This is not a bad thing, it is the Indian equivalent of a harlequin novel. And it is a kind of revolution. Indian women who traditionally married out of compulsion (it was the done thing to do)often to men who had no clue and indeed no attraction to them were learning about love and more importantly lust. Like Anais Nin’s work for feminism in the west, Shoba De raised the important idea in women’s subconscious. That it is possible to have an orgasm and to explore sexuality beyond the concept of birthing children if you are an indian.
The sexual revolution in the west marks a point where feminism began in earnest. Across the western world women realised that they are just as important as men and can demand the same rights, building on the work of the suffragettes. In addition their cohesiveness was supported by men who didn’t really believe in the ideology of their parents and the conservative ideas of the period.
These developments are not seen as progress in India. These are seen as something terrifying, of an assault on traditional mores that have kept women under control for millennia. To the conservative, the blame firmly rests in a straw man called the Western Woman.

“The western (usually Americans/british) woman is not like Indian women. Indian women are chaste and well behaved. Western women often are rude, badly behaved and are half naked. They have affairs and divorces and sleep with many men. Indian women are too chaste for that and should not become like that.”

The ideas is that back home in the UK (for me) and indeed across Europe and America women have all the freedoms imaginable, they are free to associate with who they like, set their own goals and to live an independent life away from male influence either parental or spousal. And that in order to do so the woman has to be a slut, that women’s freedom comes at the price of clothes, morality and tradition.
However the issue is what is immoral rather than the immorality of western women. The straw man is built over what people find immoral and shocking, which is the lifestyle of the west because they assume that giving freedom to women results in orgies and women dressing like prostitutes. The Victorian standard applies, an indian movie is a charged affair with dance sequences replacing the sex scenes. Women prance around in skimpy outfits that no one in their right minds would wear in the UK unless participating in a rap video.
The attitude is that it is better to protect a woman’s honour than for her to lose it through equality. That men will always be fools and that it is upto women to dress sensibly so as to not encourage men. That if allowed to do what she wants like the western woman, she will be seduced by nefarious men. And thus she must be kept under supervision, she is free to do as she wants but without affecting her modesty.
The western woman is used as a method of scaring men and women into following the old ways. The Men are scared of the western woman because she has the choice and the independence both mentally and financially and that most Indian men know that they may not measure upto her demanding standards. The women are scared of her comparatively raw sexuality which is regarded as vulgar. They portray her life as empty and pointless, with no greater purpose but sexual gratification. They see the western woman as prostituting herself for her freedom which they are quite rightly not willing to do.
Remember, the freedom comes first, then the sex.