The irony of the USA is that while most of us still deny that we are animals, those same people behave just like cattle with guns. The breeding of our species has been our of control for so long, and we see the impact on the rest of the world quite clearly.
But in the USA most people act like cattle, focused on sex and fucking us all to the brink of extinction. Only China could possibly be worse about this than us, considering they don't even worry about the toxic air they produce.
But let's stick with the western world, because we should have the freedom to be smarter than them. I look around and see so many herds of cattle, I mean families, with many calves in tow, acting like they're somehow superior to those of us smart enough to not breed.
The sad part is that they could still keep fucking if they want, all they need to do is get sterilized or use protection to prevent becoming cattle. Then end result of this cattle like behavior is the propagation of the most idiotic people in the country.
There was a movie based on this that may just be a documentary about our future if the people in my own country don't start behaving more like animals.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
USA, Home Of The Delusional
The price of religious belief is often obfuscated by the closet believers, those idiots who always defend religion with the old canard of "what's wrong with …" The fact is that everything is wrong with religion, everything.
I have gone into great detail about many of the inherent flaws with any belief that opposes reality, and why there are no true moderates. But one thing I never dud was state the simplest reason why belief that opposes reality is dangerous, because I always thought this was common sense.
If a delusion is present in one person we know they are at risk of that delusion causing their detachment from reality to affect their actions, bringing harm to themselves and others. We also know that the delusion will mask other possible mental problems, seriously dangerous and violent ones.
So we closely monitor this person for signs of other such dangers to reduce the chances of them bringing harm, making it possible to step in and hopefully prevent their delusion from getting out of hand. Now assume we did not recognize the delusion, or we called it something else, and considered it acceptable.
Delusions have this funny effect, making a person lose their ability to discern reality from imagination. When the delusion focuses on a television series we immediately understand the fact that it's delusion.
But when the same level of delusion focuses on a god we dismiss it as belief or religion. We make the delusion acceptable and pay less or no attention to those who suffer from it, but it is no less a loss of ability to discern fact from fantasy.
To make matters worse, many ideas that are common in humans are considered delusions because of this god delusion, even though the ideas do not conflate fact from fantasy in any way. Transgender, sexual fetishes, games, even cosplay are considered delusions and bad, by the delusion called religion.
Even today, people in the USA are allowed to discriminate, even commit violence, against these harmless and perfectly sane aspects of life. But we protect the obviously, demonstrably, harmful delusion called religion and allow it's followers to make laws for which the rest of us must abide by.
We, the USA, allow people who think they can make up reality as they go, to define what reality is for everyone. This makes the entire country delusional.
I have gone into great detail about many of the inherent flaws with any belief that opposes reality, and why there are no true moderates. But one thing I never dud was state the simplest reason why belief that opposes reality is dangerous, because I always thought this was common sense.
If a delusion is present in one person we know they are at risk of that delusion causing their detachment from reality to affect their actions, bringing harm to themselves and others. We also know that the delusion will mask other possible mental problems, seriously dangerous and violent ones.
So we closely monitor this person for signs of other such dangers to reduce the chances of them bringing harm, making it possible to step in and hopefully prevent their delusion from getting out of hand. Now assume we did not recognize the delusion, or we called it something else, and considered it acceptable.
Delusions have this funny effect, making a person lose their ability to discern reality from imagination. When the delusion focuses on a television series we immediately understand the fact that it's delusion.
But when the same level of delusion focuses on a god we dismiss it as belief or religion. We make the delusion acceptable and pay less or no attention to those who suffer from it, but it is no less a loss of ability to discern fact from fantasy.
To make matters worse, many ideas that are common in humans are considered delusions because of this god delusion, even though the ideas do not conflate fact from fantasy in any way. Transgender, sexual fetishes, games, even cosplay are considered delusions and bad, by the delusion called religion.
Even today, people in the USA are allowed to discriminate, even commit violence, against these harmless and perfectly sane aspects of life. But we protect the obviously, demonstrably, harmful delusion called religion and allow it's followers to make laws for which the rest of us must abide by.
We, the USA, allow people who think they can make up reality as they go, to define what reality is for everyone. This makes the entire country delusional.
Do Not Raise Minimum Wages
A successful economy works best with the least amount of government influence, either direction, for the same reason theocracy is a failure. Once you have finished reciting your propaganda lines, please, continue reading.
We see the reason clearly when minimum wage is increased in the USA, though not in other countries. The reason for this discrepancy will become clear very soon.
Consider the copyright system, originally it was made into law because offering the inventors a time to recuperate the costs of development would increase the number of people willing to invest in innovations. Today the copyright laws are outrageous, insanely oppressive because of a few corporations pulling the strings of the politicians.
So in order to sell a version of a product that is made more efficiently and with less costs the copyright holder must be paid whatever they ask, until the day the species becomes extinct. Resulting in absolutely no savings to pass onto the consumer and thus the original producer gets to decide the value of their product no matter how necessary it is for survival.
The end result is that the labor used in the entire process of selling the product to the consumer is added to the total cost, and the only people really earning massive profits are those who hold the copyrights. Walmart is often wrongfully blamed for this discrepancy.
Often people will use the profit value of the corporation, which is a total sum of all their holdings. The outlet stores are only a small portion of their profits, the company owns many other companies which it makes the bulk of it's profits from and no one ever looks at the problems these others are causing.
It's legerdemain, the outlets are given focus by the primary company so that no one realizes just what the company is actually guilty of. Most of the corporations are doing this now, using the minimum wage and their trademarked outlets as smoke screens to cover the real problems.
Should minimum wage be increased? Maybe. We can't know for certain at this time because the costs of everything are hyper inflated by the fact that super wealthy people are being counted as middle class.
Here's the guideline: if you can afford a new phone and computer each year and own a home or a car newer than 2005, you are super wealthy. Most of us are lucky to own a computer that's not more than a decade old or a phone that is now discontinued, and if we're really lucky we have a studio closet … sorry, I meant apartment.
My cat Pepper is the least expensive thing I own, compared to my PS2 that I have had for 7 years even. Ironically, she is more valuable to me than my own life.
So no, do not raise the minimum wage, simplify the fucking laws involved with the relationship of corporation and government so that the corporations cannot get away with atrocities or influence our politicians more than the voters do.
We see the reason clearly when minimum wage is increased in the USA, though not in other countries. The reason for this discrepancy will become clear very soon.
Consider the copyright system, originally it was made into law because offering the inventors a time to recuperate the costs of development would increase the number of people willing to invest in innovations. Today the copyright laws are outrageous, insanely oppressive because of a few corporations pulling the strings of the politicians.
So in order to sell a version of a product that is made more efficiently and with less costs the copyright holder must be paid whatever they ask, until the day the species becomes extinct. Resulting in absolutely no savings to pass onto the consumer and thus the original producer gets to decide the value of their product no matter how necessary it is for survival.
The end result is that the labor used in the entire process of selling the product to the consumer is added to the total cost, and the only people really earning massive profits are those who hold the copyrights. Walmart is often wrongfully blamed for this discrepancy.
Often people will use the profit value of the corporation, which is a total sum of all their holdings. The outlet stores are only a small portion of their profits, the company owns many other companies which it makes the bulk of it's profits from and no one ever looks at the problems these others are causing.
It's legerdemain, the outlets are given focus by the primary company so that no one realizes just what the company is actually guilty of. Most of the corporations are doing this now, using the minimum wage and their trademarked outlets as smoke screens to cover the real problems.
Should minimum wage be increased? Maybe. We can't know for certain at this time because the costs of everything are hyper inflated by the fact that super wealthy people are being counted as middle class.
Here's the guideline: if you can afford a new phone and computer each year and own a home or a car newer than 2005, you are super wealthy. Most of us are lucky to own a computer that's not more than a decade old or a phone that is now discontinued, and if we're really lucky we have a studio closet … sorry, I meant apartment.
My cat Pepper is the least expensive thing I own, compared to my PS2 that I have had for 7 years even. Ironically, she is more valuable to me than my own life.
So no, do not raise the minimum wage, simplify the fucking laws involved with the relationship of corporation and government so that the corporations cannot get away with atrocities or influence our politicians more than the voters do.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
I Just Blocked You
The new "I'll pray for you" is "now you're blocked." Neither has any more impact on an intelligent person than the other because saying those phrases is nothing more than an attempt to bruise the other person's ego.
Since there is absolutely no effect from either phrase or action, there is no effect on anyone who has half a brain when they are stated. It's all about the believer's ego, like all religious nonsense.
Most religious people complain that us atheists are arrogant, well, some of us are, so fucking what? The hypocrisy of religious people is that they are not only arrogant, they claim that arrogance is a sin then deny their arrogance.
This makes them inherently liars, the belief that they chose the correct religion out of thousands is the most arrogant idea they have. This idea is required for their belief, and thus they are inherently arrogant, ergo they are inherently liars.
So they adopt these ego boosting phrases, which can be fun to toss back at them to really kill their self worth. They feed on the fear that they feel, the fear of being wrong.
To them it is a paralyzing fear, most of us atheists don't understand the fear as we never felt it. Tell an atheist we're wrong and back it up with evidence and we will learn from it and improve.
Tell a believer that they are wrong and they will scream a denial, attempt to shut you up, then continue to repeat the same mistake until they die. This is the arrogance manifesting for the world to see, fueled by the fear of being wrong.
This is why they hilariously believe Pascal's Wager is a valid argument, even though employing this actually proves they are wrong. Pascal was feeding on the believer's fear of being wrong to garner respect from those who don't even respect themselves enough to admit they're liars.
The truly hilarious part about the blocking, they almost never actually do it. They have to prove their point, ultimately showing just how stupid they really are.
Since there is absolutely no effect from either phrase or action, there is no effect on anyone who has half a brain when they are stated. It's all about the believer's ego, like all religious nonsense.
Most religious people complain that us atheists are arrogant, well, some of us are, so fucking what? The hypocrisy of religious people is that they are not only arrogant, they claim that arrogance is a sin then deny their arrogance.
This makes them inherently liars, the belief that they chose the correct religion out of thousands is the most arrogant idea they have. This idea is required for their belief, and thus they are inherently arrogant, ergo they are inherently liars.
So they adopt these ego boosting phrases, which can be fun to toss back at them to really kill their self worth. They feed on the fear that they feel, the fear of being wrong.
To them it is a paralyzing fear, most of us atheists don't understand the fear as we never felt it. Tell an atheist we're wrong and back it up with evidence and we will learn from it and improve.
Tell a believer that they are wrong and they will scream a denial, attempt to shut you up, then continue to repeat the same mistake until they die. This is the arrogance manifesting for the world to see, fueled by the fear of being wrong.
This is why they hilariously believe Pascal's Wager is a valid argument, even though employing this actually proves they are wrong. Pascal was feeding on the believer's fear of being wrong to garner respect from those who don't even respect themselves enough to admit they're liars.
The truly hilarious part about the blocking, they almost never actually do it. They have to prove their point, ultimately showing just how stupid they really are.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
The Bums And Their Wars
Military, a necessary evil that is becoming obsolete. Currently the least amount of war is present in our world than ever before, taking into account population and resource inequality.
Yet there are those calking for more war while the majority of us love the idea of a world without it. Profit, the driving force of why they want war, it's not legitimate profit though.
A legitimate business caters to the individual consumers, their success or failure and profits depend on the value and demand of their products. War is not this, war generates profits from compulsory customers through the financial collective called the government.
Thus war is just welfare for those who don't need any. I hear and read of many people complaining about the poor and needy who collect a pittance from the government here, costing a small fraction of the taxes collect by the government.
Often the poor and needy are called lazy, I get it, they sit around in offices all day gossiping about who fucked who or playing games on the company's internet connection … wait a minute, that's the upper class I just described. Okay, those lazy poor people, always going on shopping trips in their limos paid for by taxes to pay thousands of dollars of taxes on a single outfit for a fundraiser to convince the politicians to give them more money … wait, those are the warmongers in Congress.
The laziest thing I see poor people do qualifies as a job, standing on a street corner in freezing or scorching weather asking for a sandwich. Middle class does this as well, though they enter businesses and beg for food in the form of a job.
So who are the lazy scumbags draining our taxes? You tell me.
Yet there are those calking for more war while the majority of us love the idea of a world without it. Profit, the driving force of why they want war, it's not legitimate profit though.
A legitimate business caters to the individual consumers, their success or failure and profits depend on the value and demand of their products. War is not this, war generates profits from compulsory customers through the financial collective called the government.
Thus war is just welfare for those who don't need any. I hear and read of many people complaining about the poor and needy who collect a pittance from the government here, costing a small fraction of the taxes collect by the government.
Often the poor and needy are called lazy, I get it, they sit around in offices all day gossiping about who fucked who or playing games on the company's internet connection … wait a minute, that's the upper class I just described. Okay, those lazy poor people, always going on shopping trips in their limos paid for by taxes to pay thousands of dollars of taxes on a single outfit for a fundraiser to convince the politicians to give them more money … wait, those are the warmongers in Congress.
The laziest thing I see poor people do qualifies as a job, standing on a street corner in freezing or scorching weather asking for a sandwich. Middle class does this as well, though they enter businesses and beg for food in the form of a job.
So who are the lazy scumbags draining our taxes? You tell me.
You're Picking On My Religion
Every atheist has heard this cry at least a million times, not only is it fallacious, it demonstrates the selfishness, egocentric, and arrogance of religion in one simple phrase. "Stop picking on my religion," or some other variant.
By nature of being an atheist we are inherently dismissing everyone's god claims, usually for lack of evidence (still waiting for just one of you god nuts to present empirical evidence of your claims). Atheist means we are without any belief in any form of god, by any name or description.
Being an atheist does not demand one be a skeptic or even sane, we have our own nuts like those denying medical science and those who think Bigfoot exists. However we all wind up being atheists, eventually, if we use our brains and ask questions.
So what about us vocal or "militant" atheists makes one think that we're picking on their religion and not others? Egocentrism, specifically. Egocentrism is the idea that only you exist, or only your "kind."
Each religion demands that all other religions are wrong, and evil. Thus when facing something like the atheist, with no inherent religious affiliation, it is incapable of demonizing us, or pretending we don't exist, the way it does other competing brands.
Then they feel the need to be the victim, a clear display of selfishness. This is a tactic used by preachers to keep their followers blind, they convince them that everything is out to hurt them just for being them, they are told that being the victim is inevitable and the followers are too stupid to see beyond what they are told by their leaders.
Now the final phase is the one where they believe they are inherently correct, that they have exclusive knowledge which everyone else is lacking. This is the display of arrogance that religion fuels in the minds of the blind followers, they cannot possibly be wrong because they are special and chosen by some magical sky fairy.
Thus they always fall into the belief that us vocal atheists are picking on them, they believe this because the preachers have told them thus as a tactic for protecting the mental engineering done to the believers. It keeps them insane and ignorant so the preacher can continue to profit off their stupidity.
Pity those poor fools, but more importantly, make them show it in public more and more. This is our only tool for fighting this delusion at this time, one day we will have the weight to use medicine to help these poor people.
By nature of being an atheist we are inherently dismissing everyone's god claims, usually for lack of evidence (still waiting for just one of you god nuts to present empirical evidence of your claims). Atheist means we are without any belief in any form of god, by any name or description.
Being an atheist does not demand one be a skeptic or even sane, we have our own nuts like those denying medical science and those who think Bigfoot exists. However we all wind up being atheists, eventually, if we use our brains and ask questions.
So what about us vocal or "militant" atheists makes one think that we're picking on their religion and not others? Egocentrism, specifically. Egocentrism is the idea that only you exist, or only your "kind."
Each religion demands that all other religions are wrong, and evil. Thus when facing something like the atheist, with no inherent religious affiliation, it is incapable of demonizing us, or pretending we don't exist, the way it does other competing brands.
Then they feel the need to be the victim, a clear display of selfishness. This is a tactic used by preachers to keep their followers blind, they convince them that everything is out to hurt them just for being them, they are told that being the victim is inevitable and the followers are too stupid to see beyond what they are told by their leaders.
Now the final phase is the one where they believe they are inherently correct, that they have exclusive knowledge which everyone else is lacking. This is the display of arrogance that religion fuels in the minds of the blind followers, they cannot possibly be wrong because they are special and chosen by some magical sky fairy.
Thus they always fall into the belief that us vocal atheists are picking on them, they believe this because the preachers have told them thus as a tactic for protecting the mental engineering done to the believers. It keeps them insane and ignorant so the preacher can continue to profit off their stupidity.
Pity those poor fools, but more importantly, make them show it in public more and more. This is our only tool for fighting this delusion at this time, one day we will have the weight to use medicine to help these poor people.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Republicans Are Not Conservatives
Political parties and ideals are often considered interchangeable in the USA, this is rather idiotic as a Republican is not conservative and conservatives typically support Democrats. There are several tests online go figure out your political leaning, most are pretty accurate and telling.
The reason for their lack in popularity is because politics has become a circus, and nothing more. It's all for show as a means of distracting the voters from the reality of the world around them, like religion, it's to keep you from asking questions.
So here is yet another plea from a Democrat supporting, atheist, conservative to learn and use the labs correctly. Republicans are not conservative, and Democrats are not liberal, those are parties with platforms, and they're suppose to be opposing platforms, within reason.
The parties have abused the names of the ideologies so much as to convince the public that they are the same thing as the party that claims to abide by them. The irony is that the parties do not abide by the ideals they even claim to.
Democrats are very conservative lately, trying to pull government out of many aspects of our lives, especially in areas governed by emotion. Where as Republicans have become very liberal, attempting to regulate things which the government never had any right to do anyway, especially in areas that even public opinion should have no effect.
Gay marriage is one great example, and the abuse of labels here is so thorough it's lunacy. The liberal ideal would be to regulate who can or cannot be married with an iron fist, no exceptions, regardless of the reasons.
The conservative ideal on this topic would simply be … the government has no business on who you marry only on upholding the contract involved to the letter of the law as a method of maintaining fairness. Contracts are a legal agreement between two parties, in marriage it's a merging of assets and responsibilities between two individuals, in business speak it's simply called a merger.
The "institution" is really just a myth, there was never such a thing and religions that claim to be the reason for it are all lying. It has always been a legal contract and it will always be one no matter what claim is made, we could call it a merging and it would be the same thing.
Another is abortion, again the liberal ideal would be to regulate it, even a little, in the laws. The conservative ideal is to allow the medical professionals the responsibility of regulating it, as this is part of their job, and only involve the law when a dispute occurs.
Actually, that's the simplistic method of determining if it's truly liberal or conservative, liberal means more, conservative means less, "government" is implied when used for politics. So it's more or less government influence, and it's that simple.
Republican and Democrat are parties, and they shift between liberal and conservative, religious and secular, etc based on which politicians are in charge. The names are based on nothing more than selling points, Democrat was originally an anarchist label and Republican was a label representing organization.
There you have it, the reason USA voters are mostly inbred idiots incapable of thinking in three dimensions on anything. I am an atheist conservative who currently supports Democrats and their current platform, and this is in no way a contradiction.
The reason for their lack in popularity is because politics has become a circus, and nothing more. It's all for show as a means of distracting the voters from the reality of the world around them, like religion, it's to keep you from asking questions.
So here is yet another plea from a Democrat supporting, atheist, conservative to learn and use the labs correctly. Republicans are not conservative, and Democrats are not liberal, those are parties with platforms, and they're suppose to be opposing platforms, within reason.
The parties have abused the names of the ideologies so much as to convince the public that they are the same thing as the party that claims to abide by them. The irony is that the parties do not abide by the ideals they even claim to.
Democrats are very conservative lately, trying to pull government out of many aspects of our lives, especially in areas governed by emotion. Where as Republicans have become very liberal, attempting to regulate things which the government never had any right to do anyway, especially in areas that even public opinion should have no effect.
Gay marriage is one great example, and the abuse of labels here is so thorough it's lunacy. The liberal ideal would be to regulate who can or cannot be married with an iron fist, no exceptions, regardless of the reasons.
The conservative ideal on this topic would simply be … the government has no business on who you marry only on upholding the contract involved to the letter of the law as a method of maintaining fairness. Contracts are a legal agreement between two parties, in marriage it's a merging of assets and responsibilities between two individuals, in business speak it's simply called a merger.
The "institution" is really just a myth, there was never such a thing and religions that claim to be the reason for it are all lying. It has always been a legal contract and it will always be one no matter what claim is made, we could call it a merging and it would be the same thing.
Another is abortion, again the liberal ideal would be to regulate it, even a little, in the laws. The conservative ideal is to allow the medical professionals the responsibility of regulating it, as this is part of their job, and only involve the law when a dispute occurs.
Actually, that's the simplistic method of determining if it's truly liberal or conservative, liberal means more, conservative means less, "government" is implied when used for politics. So it's more or less government influence, and it's that simple.
Republican and Democrat are parties, and they shift between liberal and conservative, religious and secular, etc based on which politicians are in charge. The names are based on nothing more than selling points, Democrat was originally an anarchist label and Republican was a label representing organization.
There you have it, the reason USA voters are mostly inbred idiots incapable of thinking in three dimensions on anything. I am an atheist conservative who currently supports Democrats and their current platform, and this is in no way a contradiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)