nazerine:

heremywords:

missyay:

nazerine:

excessivecompulsive:

nazerine:

the anti vaccination movement basically consists of random people with no knowledge of medicine going “I can medicine better than doctors” and it would be hilarious if it wasn’t literally killing people

you dont need vaccines, I havent had any and Im still doing great

wow, what a compelling argument. you’ve got me

in other news, i am still alive therefore death must be a myth

How much research have you done on these toxins you’re putting in your body? Also all the kids that have died from getting the measles or polio are the kids that got vaccinated.

this just in, everybody: the tens thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of disabilities caused by polio between its identification in 1908 and the introduction of vaccines in the early 1950s were, in fact, caused retroactively by those very vaccines

Oooo, toxins! Big meaningless scare-words. And a complete ignorance of herd immunity from the second poster in the chain! It must be a day ending in Y. 

The principles behind vaccines are basic human immunology. It’s very simple: when your body fights off a viral disease it produces antibodies that stay in the system, allowing for resistance or immunity to that disease strain (and some similar ones, depending on how different the virus’s shell is from its relatives). Unfortunately, many viruses can cripple, disfigure or kill on a first infection. 

A vaccine contains a dead or weakened virus that will still trigger the immune response (this is why you may get some minor symptoms shortly after a vaccination, a lot of what we consider ‘disease’ symptoms are actually the activity of our immune system.) and prepare the body for the real thing. 

Some of the compounds used in vaccines to keep the samples fresh or to kill the viral component are, technically, toxic. However, poison is in the dose. If vaccines truly were causing harm we’d see pandemic levels of effect. Instead we have anecdotal evidence by paranoid people ignorant of the science and a single medical shyster working with a sample size so small you could literally fit it in a loft apartment.

Lets talk the elephant in the room: Autism. The reason autism rates “have been going up” is not due to any change in the rate of autism. It is a change in the rate of diagnosis caused by the expansion of autism from a narrowly defined condition covering only its most extreme cases to a spectrum that recognizes a wider range of effect. What the DSM calls autism now was not what it called autism in the 1950s. What we now realizes is a neurological condition was once written off in the mild cases as shyness, antisocial behavior, introversion or ‘just being weird.’

And let’s not forget shame and ego. Autism appears to be a largely genetic phenomenon, caused either by mutations of specific genes or through combinations of various genetic factors. Some parents are clearly incapable of accepting that the condition came from them. The vaccine, which is introduced around the time you’d expect autism symptoms to occur, is a handy scapegoat. 

Nevermind that there is no understandable motive for the conspiracy proposed by anti-vaxers. It isn’t money. Vaccines are difficult to produce, require continuous revision and are sold at narrow profit margins compared to other drugs. If the drug companies wanted to ride the profit motive here, they’d ignore the vaccines and go for the symptom-alleviating drugs and antivirals. The only thing left is the idea that somehow, the vast majority of doctors, medical researchers, drug researchers and manufacturers, and government agencies worldwide are all complicit in a massive scheme to poison children going back to Salk, with no whistle-blowing, and no independent verification. All of this with the intent of sowing economically-draining-but-not-fatal illness to… and again we hit the motive wall. 

We’ve grown up comfortable. Pandemic disease doesn’t terrify us the way it once did. Watch the old Rabbit Fever Bugs Bunny cartoon, at one time government-enforced quarantine of sick persons was enough of a thing that it was a joke in a cartoon. Read up on what the Spanish Flu did to the world populace. Read up on exactly what polio was like. Learn how viruses work and how the immune system does as well. 

Then tell me what’s more likely, that vaccines are a plot to do something sinister to humanity for reasons, or that scared parents and money-grubbing shysters can whip up a conspiracy woven from ignorance, guilt and fear.

 

cracked:

Gladstone and Stephen Colbert know who Jonathan Swift is, but not everyone else has caught up.
3 Modern Satirists Screwed by People Who Didn’t Get the Joke

#3. Stephen Colbert Gets Attacked by a Hashtag Activist Who’s Wrong About Everything
In [an interview, Suey Park] describes how she “saw the hashtag as a way to critique white liberals who use forms of racial humor to mock more blatant forms of racism.” I read the interview several times, reading all the poorly chosen, unconvincing words. And maybe I’m wrong, but, quite simply, despite the loads of verbiage, I’m pretty sure Park simply feels that there are certain no-no words, bad words that can never be used to prove any point or be justified by any context.
I reject that out of hand, as should anyone with an active mind. Park’s lack of faith is not with Colbert, of whom she claims to be a fan, but the rest of society. She does not believe people can hear uncomfortable or provocative jokes in any context that would justify their use without adding fuel to the fire of racism.

Read More

Read the whole article, it is very enlightening.

cracked:

Gladstone and Stephen Colbert know who Jonathan Swift is, but not everyone else has caught up.

3 Modern Satirists Screwed by People Who Didn’t Get the Joke

#3. Stephen Colbert Gets Attacked by a Hashtag Activist Who’s Wrong About Everything

In [an interview, Suey Park] describes how she “saw the hashtag as a way to critique white liberals who use forms of racial humor to mock more blatant forms of racism.” I read the interview several times, reading all the poorly chosen, unconvincing words. And maybe I’m wrong, but, quite simply, despite the loads of verbiage, I’m pretty sure Park simply feels that there are certain no-no words, bad words that can never be used to prove any point or be justified by any context.

I reject that out of hand, as should anyone with an active mind. Park’s lack of faith is not with Colbert, of whom she claims to be a fan, but the rest of society. She does not believe people can hear uncomfortable or provocative jokes in any context that would justify their use without adding fuel to the fire of racism.

Read More

Read the whole article, it is very enlightening.

An Honest Question For ProChoice People

blue-author:

anaccountofmylife:

I know there are heated debates and people have been wronged on both sides of the arguments. However, I want to ask one question to pro choice people that will help you understand where pro life comes from.

Put aside your beliefs/biases/experiences please for this question and answer honestly.

"If you honestly believed that a fetus is a human life, wouldn’t you do anything to save it from being killed?"

Because pro life people truly believe, based on science, religion, or personal experience, that every fetus is a human child. Therefore we feel we must do everything in our power to save that life. We don’t always get it right, and there are some people who are cruel and heartless, but at the crux of our argument is that life deserves to be saved.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that if I truly believed that abortion killed a person, I wouldn’t do anything like what 99% of anti-abortion agitators do.

You put pennies in a box.

You make signs.

You scream misogynistic and violent insults at women who are seeking unspecified health care services at health care facilities, some of which don’t even provide abortions to begin with.

You push laws that target the abortions that are most often life-saving, most often applied to non-viable fetuses.

None of these things really scream “I AM SERIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIVES OF ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS THAT I GENUINELY BELIEVE ARE IN JEOPARDY!” to me, you know?

What they instead speak of is an intense desire to project oneself into a life-or-death conflict, but one without any actual stakes and one that does not require much more than symbolic gestures on behalf of the “believers”. 

As a bonus, you get to feel better than a bunch people just normal people like you. You get to feel like you’re a crusader for truth and justice in a world full of people so evil, they’d kill babies for fun and profit.

And when you’re out on the picket line, you can engage in the deepest, most shameful impulses that a human being can wrestle with as you shout vile things at the people trying to enter the clinic. Actual people, who are often actually at the most vulnerable part of their grown lives, possibly people who are wrestling with health problems, possibly people who are dealing with the devastating reality of finding out that a fervently desired pregnancy is not safe or non-viable… and you can reduce them to tears. Such power! You and your friends can mob up (strength in numbers) and shout whatever you want this person. You can completely dehumanize an actual human being standing right in front of you.

And it’s okay.

Because you’ve got this fig leaf for your conscience where—when it’s convenient to do so, when it suits your agenda and your plans—you convince yourself there are these other actual human beings that you are standing up for.

You’re desecrating the everloving carp out of the human life standing in front of you, but it’s okay, because life is sacred. When it’s convenient. When it’s your alibi. When it’s your sword and shield.

But when it’s not convenient? Forget about it. Oh, man… if you truly believed that millions of tiny precious babies were being systematically murdered, would you be blogging about it? I’m not daring you to go out and prove your convictions by committing violence yourself, but even restricting yourself to non-violent means, don’t you think you would be doing something more than posters and pennies and posts if you really thought that “an American holocaust” (as so many anti-choice folks have crassly put it) was happening?

Man, I’m glad you asked me what we would do if we sincerely believed that there were all these lives at stake, because it really exposes how hollow the “pro-life” movement is.

Though of course, its hollowness hardly needs to be pointed out. It’s weird how many protestant Christian denominations suddenly did a 180 on abortion and the belief that a fetus was a person with a soul when it suddenly became a viable political wedge issue. Did you know that? As recently as 1979, you could have gone to a lot of the most pro-life protestant churches in the country and asked their leaders if fetuses had souls and abortion was murder, and they would have told you no, that’s some Catholic dogma that’s completely against the Bible. And they’d point to passages that suggest that no, God does not see a fetus as being equivalent to a person and send you on your way.

But then, somehow, suddenly… the inerrant word of God changed. Almost overnight. Why? Because the preachers had allied themselves with rightwing politicians, and between them, they saw a goldmine.

Because they understand the real question isn’t: what would people do if they honestly believed that babies’ lives were on the line, wouldn’t a lot of people vote for a politician who takes a bold stance against baby killing, since that demands nothing from the person casting the vote but lets them feel like they’ve done a huge good deed?

So they did that.

And a lot of people fell for it.

You give your votes, you give your money, you give your time to the cause. Not much from each individual, but it adds up. It all adds up.

And you will always do this.

Because baby killing will always be wrong, and it’s not like anyone’s asking you to fight a war, right?

That’s what politicians call a permanent wedge issue. The people who “vote life” can be relied on to vote against their interests, to vote against their neighbors, to vote against politicians who would improve the circumstances that lead people to require abortions.

Abortions go up when social safety nets are cut. Abortions go up when wages go down. Abortions go up when health care costs rise. Abortions go up when sex ed is inadequate.

But “pro-life” voters vote for politicians who are in favor of all of these circumstances that lead to abortions.

Isn’t that weird?

But you’ll effectively vote for everything that leads to abortions, because all you care about is that you get to register your vote against baby-killin’. 

The pro-life stance is about convenience and feeling good. 

Leaving all that good retort for a bit of my own.

Because pro life people truly believe, based on science, religion, or personal experience, that every fetus is a human child. Therefore we feel we must do everything in our power to save that life. We don’t always get it right, and there are some people who are cruel and heartless, but at the crux of our argument is that life deserves to be saved.

Of those three things, only one of them is a valid means of making this kind of decision: Science. Until you can PROVE your religion is true, then you have no place enforcing its edicts on nonbelievers. There are thousands of religions on Earth, each with its own rules, and these are frequently contradictory, frivolous or monstrous to outside observation. If the whole ‘word of god’ thing was the real guiding force, then these people would be just as fervent about dietary law, ritual cleanliness, the death penalty for adulterers, rebellious children and people who work on the Sabbath, and so forth. 

And personal experience tells people there are UFOs, that rabbits’ feet are lucky, that fluoride makes you impotent and that FEMA is setting up death camps. Human senses are flawed and most people act from a place of unchecked ignorance. Personal experience is a non-starter.

That leaves science. With science, the major answers are already answered. The morning after pill IS NOT AN ABORTION METHOD, it prevents ovulation, meaning that the egg and sperm never meet. If you’ve already ovulated it doesn’t work. Yet anti-choice propaganda makes it out to be an abortion method.  

If you want to decrease the number of abortions, then comprehensive sex education, availability of birth control and a functional social safety net are proven to do so. The abortion rates are highest in the red states. Why is that, I wonder? 

The law in most places already forbids abortions in late stages when the fetus has the capacity to feel pain or be viable on on its own, except in cases to protect the mother’s life. The anti-choice propaganda machine likes to put pictures of newborn and premature babies out as propaganda, but their accounts almost never conform to the scientific account. 

This is a propaganda engine put into place to politicize religion and use it to unite disparate Christian factions against an imaginary enemy. Shouts and screams that millions of imaginary precious babies are being slaughtered used to keep the various factions from worrying about policy issues. Or from noticing that they’re surrounded, on all sides, by heretics who do not share their religious beliefs. And remember, there is a maximum of one correct religion. So if you think it is yours, then by definition everyone else is deceived or a deceiver. That I think you’re all full of crap is beside the point. You are a heretic to them and they are heretics to you. As soon as the more overt other is overthrown the movement will turn on the next most distant belief system, over and over again. If you don’t believe that your faith only grants you the right to govern yourself by that faith, you open yourself up to be ground under someone else’s belief system.

Jesus never said anything about abortion, but he sure as hell talked a lot about caring for the poor, the sick, the widowed and the orphaned. Where is the Evangelical zeal for a universal health care system that would keep young children healthy without bankrupting their parents? Where are the Christians when CEOs are allowed to slash worker pay to keep stock prices up while giving themselves obscene bonuses? Where are the followers of the Prince of Peace when our tax dollars are used to kill real, fully developed, aware, living human beings in foreign nations instead of building schools, hospitals, bridges and roads? Where is are those who profess to admire the man who walked with tax collectors and prostitutes when the poor and minorities are locked out of society by an unjust criminal justice system that treats petty theft and marijuana possession as greater crimes than the looting of the entire economy?

The conservative Christians cheer when food aid to poor families is slashed. They love the gun and hate food stamps. They cheer on war are despise the social safety net. 

They will fight tooth and claw to let you be born so they can abandon you the moment it happens.

I could bring up the numerous ways that the biblical opinion on abortion differs from the anti-choice position, but why do that when others have already. 

itswalky:

the recipe song

Recipe. Take a still beating heart, pour into it your faith, your joy and your love, all boiling, and serve it unto your sovereign.

Nothing creepy there.

I’ve never been female. But I have been black my whole life. I can perhaps offer some insight from that perspective. There are many similar social issues related to access to equal opportunity that we find in the black community, as well as the community of women in a white male dominate society…

When I look at — throughout my life — I’ve known that I wanted to do astrophysics since I was 9 years old…I got to see how the world around me reacted to my expressions of these ambitions. All I can say is, the fact that I wanted to be a scientist, an astrophysicist was hands down the path of most resistance through the forces of society.

Anytime I expressed this interest, teachers would say, ‘Oh, don’t you wanna be an athlete?’ I want to become someone that was outside of the paradigm of expectations of the people in power. Fortunately, my depth of interest of the universe was so deep and so fuel enriched that everyone of these curve balls that I was thrown, and fences built in front of me, and hills that I had to climb, I just reach for more fuel, and I just kept going.

Now, here I am, one of the most visible scientists in the land, and I wanna look behind me and say, ‘Where are the others who might have been this,’ and they’re not there! …I happened to survive and others did not simply because of forces of society that prevented it at every turn. At every turn.

…My life experience tells me that when you don’t find blacks, when you don’t find women in the sciences, I know that these forces are real, and I had to survive them in order to get where I am today.

So before we start talking about genetic differences, you gotta come up with a system where there’s equal opportunity, then we can have that conversation.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson in response to a question posed by Lawrence Summers, former Treasury Security and Harvard University President

"What’s up with chicks and science?"

Are there genetic differences between men and women, explain why more men are in science.

(via magnius159)

smashsurvey:

Now think of how many of those female characters and protagonists are oversexed, created for the male gaze, or put in an inactive damsel role for the plot of the game. Representation matters. A Study last year proved that exposure to tv shows increased the self esteem of young white boys and markedly decreased the confidence and self esteem of girls across the board (and we haven’t even started on the representation of characters of color and the effect it has on children’s self perception). 

Video games are a different media, and even more concerning if representation metrics are changing how our kids think of themselves. Especially knowing that 67% of American Households have video game consoles and 91% of Children play video games regularlyhow do you think the portrayal (and lack of portrayals) of women and girls in these games is affecting little girls – or influencing how little boys view their importance and/or influence over them? 

Comics. Movies. Lit. Pop Culture. The Smash Survey is an upcoming podcast project that will critically explore the representation of race, gender, and queer identity in media and pop culture in a fun and engaging format. 

At least these statistics are being applied to the right medium now. This is a bad situation, though possibly not as much so as represented. The original study was performed in 2003, more than a decade ago. It also only took into account “top selling” games, as such we’re only looking at your breakout successes. 

Details from when this was being attributed to television representation, of all things. 

We’re a far cry away from equal representation, but things at least seem to be better now than in 2003, what with your Skyrims and new Fallout games and the like having a lot of gender representation even among mooks. It also brings into question whether how much of the problem is the audience (after all, they only accounted for “top selling” games) and how much is the creators. 

skepticalavenger:

thedopeshow99:

Sincerely, All agnostics 

Well, to be technical…
Agnosticism is the stance that ultimately the existence of a god or gods is unknowable.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.
So it is possible to be an agnostic atheist, as I am and as are most atheists.  I acknowledge that ultimately it is impossible to prove or disprove a god’s existence, but I personally see no reason to believe in one.
Likewise, it is possible to be an agnostic theist, which is belief in a god but acknowledging that ultimately your god’s existence can’t be proved.
Many people think that an atheist is someone who is certain that a god does not exist.  This would be a gnostic atheist, and in my experience people with this viewpoint are in the minority.
On the other hand, gnostic theists, that is, people who are certain that a god exists, are very common.
Here’s a handy-dandy chart with circles and stuff.


This is important, as these terminology differences are used to divide the non-faithed into smaller groups in an effort to make us seem smaller than we actually are.
Gnostic Atheists are a very, very small minority, mostly confined to those who feel that the god proposition is logically incoherent. Most of the so-called “New Atheists” (a term I personally hate) are agnostic atheists. Even Dawkins. Hitchens appears to have been one of the rare Gnostic Atheists.
Defining nonbelievers out of the atheist category and then dismissing atheists as an extreme minority of hard-liners is a strategy used by religious na’er-do-wells. It ensures that atheists in their congregations feel isolated so they’ll keep showing up to keep up appearances and keep putting into the plate.

skepticalavenger:

thedopeshow99:

Sincerely, All agnostics 

Well, to be technical…

Agnosticism is the stance that ultimately the existence of a god or gods is unknowable.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.

So it is possible to be an agnostic atheist, as I am and as are most atheists.  I acknowledge that ultimately it is impossible to prove or disprove a god’s existence, but I personally see no reason to believe in one.

Likewise, it is possible to be an agnostic theist, which is belief in a god but acknowledging that ultimately your god’s existence can’t be proved.

Many people think that an atheist is someone who is certain that a god does not exist.  This would be a gnostic atheist, and in my experience people with this viewpoint are in the minority.

On the other hand, gnostic theists, that is, people who are certain that a god exists, are very common.

Here’s a handy-dandy chart with circles and stuff.

This is important, as these terminology differences are used to divide the non-faithed into smaller groups in an effort to make us seem smaller than we actually are.

Gnostic Atheists are a very, very small minority, mostly confined to those who feel that the god proposition is logically incoherent. Most of the so-called “New Atheists” (a term I personally hate) are agnostic atheists. Even Dawkins. Hitchens appears to have been one of the rare Gnostic Atheists.

Defining nonbelievers out of the atheist category and then dismissing atheists as an extreme minority of hard-liners is a strategy used by religious na’er-do-wells. It ensures that atheists in their congregations feel isolated so they’ll keep showing up to keep up appearances and keep putting into the plate.

mintsmintsmints:

girlofthebluebox:

mintsmintsmints:

buttsquadron:

Almost 21 years old and I already hate the fuck out of teenagers.

I’ve hated them since I was a teenager.

Seriously?  They arrested a girl for a very very very very very bad joke and people got angry.  That’s normal.  These kids are just trying to show how ridiculous the arrest was/piss off the people who did it/ show solidarity.  Yes, the joke was racist and bad.  No, it was not worth an arrest.  And people realized that and got mad.

It’s not because the joke was racist, it’s because YOU DON’T JOKE ABOUT BOMBS ON AIRPLANES.

IT’S NOT FUNNY.  IT’S NOT WITTY.  IT’S NOT CUTE.

Airlines can’t take shit like that lightly, especially because, I don’t know, planes have been blown up or used in terrorist activities how many times now?

About 25 times successfully since 1933. By my (admittedly quick) count. That list doesn’t include 9/11, so you can add three to that. 28. 

For perspective, some estimates put 9 million commercial flights each year in the US alone.

So if all the successful plane bombings in history went down just last year and only affected US flights, you’d have a 1 in 321,428 chance of being involved in a plane bombing.

And those 28 incidents were scattered over 81 years and throughout the globe. We’re fine spending oodles of cash and energy making people take off their shoes and groping random people but paying a good wage to pilots and hiring enough of them so they aren’t perpetually fatigued is apparently beyond the pale.

Fear of airplane related bombings and hijacking-for-the-purpose-of-crashing-into-other-stuff isn’t rational. The arrest of a 14 year old acting stupid on the internet is just more fear-industry overreach. The kid clearly needs a stern talking to, not imprisonment.

The only reason this happened was to make an example, and that clearly hasn’t achieved the desired. Kids do stupid crap. The areas of their brains responsible for fully considering the consequences of their actions are not fully formed until their late teens/early twenties. You try to teach them, sure, but throwing the book at them isn’t going to work, as dozens of imitators have proven.

And the racist undertones of the girl’s tweet are the exact same kind of thing the ‘fear the terrorists bugga-bugga-bugga!’ crowd have been shoving down our throats since 9/11. 

lotrlockedwhovian:

viivus:

period thoughts
Vivian Ng [tumblr | twitter | society6]

that would make the funniest fucking story ever. Due to a mix up at the factory, the template for incantations that was supposed to a publishing company of dark art books is sent to a feminine products factory. Girl then accidentally summons Satan with period blood. Satan gets confused because its “dead blood” and when he shows up he realizes the sacrifice was done incorrectly so he cannot take the girl’s soul but now is bound to do her bidding because oops his bad, he showed up anyway.

I’d wager a fiver someone out there thinks that is what those patterns are, for real.

lotrlockedwhovian:

viivus:

period thoughts

Vivian Ng [tumblr | twitter | society6]

that would make the funniest fucking story ever. Due to a mix up at the factory, the template for incantations that was supposed to a publishing company of dark art books is sent to a feminine products factory. Girl then accidentally summons Satan with period blood. Satan gets confused because its “dead blood” and when he shows up he realizes the sacrifice was done incorrectly so he cannot take the girl’s soul but now is bound to do her bidding because oops his bad, he showed up anyway.

I’d wager a fiver someone out there thinks that is what those patterns are, for real.

skepticalavenger:


I wish I’d had this a few weeks ago, when I was telling students how not to present their data. This is a chart illustrating the effects of stand-your-ground-laws on murder in Florida.
I glanced at that and thought, “Whoa, surprise: the stand-your-ground-laws had a pretty dramatic effect in reducing murder. I did not expect that at all.”
And then I was a bit disappointed: “But they really should have set the Y axis at zero. It’s a bit misleading and magnifies the apparent effect, otherwise.”
And then I did a double-take: “They inverted the freaking Y axis!”
That’s right. It doesn’t show a decline, it shows a dramatic spike in murder after the law was passed. The text in the article actually says that clearly, but the chart was actively selling the opposite message. They’ve since added a corrected chart that actually makes the point clearly, instead of obscuring it.

I took away two points. It’s really easy to lie with graphics, and shouldn’t any evidence-based legal system recognize the consequences of passing a bad law and correct itself?

Unfreakinbelievable.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

skepticalavenger:

I wish I’d had this a few weeks ago, when I was telling students how not to present their data. This is a chart illustrating the effects of stand-your-ground-laws on murder in Florida.

I glanced at that and thought, “Whoa, surprise: the stand-your-ground-laws had a pretty dramatic effect in reducing murder. I did not expect that at all.”

And then I was a bit disappointed: “But they really should have set the Y axis at zero. It’s a bit misleading and magnifies the apparent effect, otherwise.”

And then I did a double-take: “They inverted the freaking Y axis!”

That’s right. It doesn’t show a decline, it shows a dramatic spike in murder after the law was passed. The text in the article actually says that clearly, but the chart was actively selling the opposite message. They’ve since added a corrected chart that actually makes the point clearly, instead of obscuring it.

betterfloridagundeaths

I took away two points. It’s really easy to lie with graphics, and shouldn’t any evidence-based legal system recognize the consequences of passing a bad law and correct itself?

Unfreakinbelievable.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.