Society is a hypocritical mess in many ways, one is how it views sex. Asexuality is spoke of as of it's the ultimate in purity, yet society constantly tells us asexual people that we don't exist. This creates a lot of stress, and leads us to do a lot of dangerous things before we stop listening to society.
The result is that most asexuals are more well versed, more knowledgeable, in sexual matters of all sorts. Thus often catches others off guard, and we tend to be marginalized even more as a result. The failed notion that a person simply cannot lack sexual pleasure or desire has caused the spread of the genetic traits for asexuality, and other non-reproductive tendencies.
By convincing those who have these genetic traits that they don't exist, or that they are lying, they are often pressured into breeding, passing these traits onto even more people in the populations. This creates a slow but steady increase in the occurrence of said traits. In essence, the growing population of homosexuals, transgendered, and even asexuals, is the fault of the heterosexual population pressuring us to deny what we are.
Another problem created is that those who deny what they are become hypersexual, they are desperate to find something considered acceptable to society that pleases them, so they try everything, with anyone willing, or even unwilling. This hypersexuality spills into society creating a severe conflict in the way people think, this conflict leads to violence and self destruction, even suicide.
The standard occurrence of the traits causing non-reproduction in humans should be a total of no more than 10%, due to the fact that they should not be spreading into the population. But the actual rate for our species has exceeded 10%, sucks to be heterosexual in the future.
But then, straight people are to blame for this explosion in the appearance of these traits, you made your bed now you must lay in it. On the bright side, we do have a problem with the population being too high, allowing people to be themselves at this point will correct that problem enough that we will not have to begin forced sterilization of population segments.
So all you who hate gay people, those who deny the existence of asexual humans, the ones who attack transgendered folks, remember, you are the reason we even exist.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Monday, October 20, 2014
The Sociopathic Doctor
The problem with the medical system is the lack of empathy that doctors believe they are required to possess. The irony us that they were correct, a long time ago.
In the past the chances of a patient surviving were very low, so doctors adopted this emotional wall between them and the patients they will likely see alive only a couple times, then attend their funeral soon after. This kept them saner, force sociopathic tendencies are inherently not sane but losing too many people you care for can cause more severe psychological problems.
The result was workable, at the time, allowing medical professionals to continue to work to the best of their ability and ultimately heal more than harm. However, times are changing, as they always do, and like many old methods this has become obsolete to the point of causing more harm than benefits.
Today it is quite common for patients and doctors to share death beds, not literally, but in the same hospital room even. This is thanks to our medical sciences advances far beyond what we had ever dreamed possible, allowing humans to live 120 years now.
However this emotional divide allows doctors to become relaxed, even clumsily so, in their treatment of patients. The forced sociopathic tendencies also result in doctors becoming actual sociopaths quite often. We see this effect in many cases, doctors misdiagnosing patients to move them through the system as quickly as possible resulting in the patients' deaths soon after or long term complications to a procedure that should have been routine.
The doctors who save the lives of patients are the ones the patients associate outside of the office more often than not. They are the doctors who are invested in caring for said patients. These are the doctors of celebrities and the super rich, but not anyone else. So why the difference?
The wealthy patients are their bread and butter, they pay the most, and medical care is all about the profit. Greed is the driving force to encourage the doctors to break down that emotional wall and draw close to their patients, for it is easier to understand someone you know as well as yourself.
The key to a successful diagnosis is just that, understanding what the patient describes. A patient with a huge cultural difference will be difficult to understand, their adjective usage will seem alien to the doctor, resulting in poor diagnosis. This also often leads to the patient being declared incompetent even if said patient understands the problems better than the doctor.
To over come cultural boundaries, and other such problems, the doctor must become friends and form an attachment to the patient, the sociopathic wall must be taken down. Once invested in the patients' well being emotionally, the doctor is able to understand complaints better and pinpoint problems that are often missed in any mechanical examination.
This attachment offers further benefits in that the doctor is also more likely to understand the emotional state of the patient and know how it plays into their complaints. Emotions play a huge role in how we perceive things, my doctor recently discovered lumps in the area of my colon and all I can think about is "what if it's cancer?"
Because of this I am likely to forget to mention many other sensations associated with this problem, resulting in a missed diagnosis. A doctor who knows me well would know how afraid of surgery I am as well as how extremely high my pain tolerance is and prod for more information, while others will assume I have offered all the pertinent information.
This could be the difference between life and death, undiagnosed problems in the colon do kill patients quite often, even though a false positive for cancer can also be beneficial. So I have to figure out, on my own, what information is valid and what belongs to the other problem that has been ignored by doctors for a long time. The result is that I am under extremely high amounts of stress now.
This is a common result as well, patients go through a lot of anxiety when faced with a stranger for a doctor, even if they have seen this face several times before. This is not without a price, doctors will have to learn to govern their emotions like everyone else, not allowing one's anger or disgust get in the way of their activities.
Doctors will have to learn to avoid becoming violent when angry, like everyone else, and how to actually cope with loss and disappointment. The costs may seem high, but the rest of us have learned to do this, we can help doctors experience emotional attachments in a healthy way as well.
In the past the chances of a patient surviving were very low, so doctors adopted this emotional wall between them and the patients they will likely see alive only a couple times, then attend their funeral soon after. This kept them saner, force sociopathic tendencies are inherently not sane but losing too many people you care for can cause more severe psychological problems.
The result was workable, at the time, allowing medical professionals to continue to work to the best of their ability and ultimately heal more than harm. However, times are changing, as they always do, and like many old methods this has become obsolete to the point of causing more harm than benefits.
Today it is quite common for patients and doctors to share death beds, not literally, but in the same hospital room even. This is thanks to our medical sciences advances far beyond what we had ever dreamed possible, allowing humans to live 120 years now.
However this emotional divide allows doctors to become relaxed, even clumsily so, in their treatment of patients. The forced sociopathic tendencies also result in doctors becoming actual sociopaths quite often. We see this effect in many cases, doctors misdiagnosing patients to move them through the system as quickly as possible resulting in the patients' deaths soon after or long term complications to a procedure that should have been routine.
The doctors who save the lives of patients are the ones the patients associate outside of the office more often than not. They are the doctors who are invested in caring for said patients. These are the doctors of celebrities and the super rich, but not anyone else. So why the difference?
The wealthy patients are their bread and butter, they pay the most, and medical care is all about the profit. Greed is the driving force to encourage the doctors to break down that emotional wall and draw close to their patients, for it is easier to understand someone you know as well as yourself.
The key to a successful diagnosis is just that, understanding what the patient describes. A patient with a huge cultural difference will be difficult to understand, their adjective usage will seem alien to the doctor, resulting in poor diagnosis. This also often leads to the patient being declared incompetent even if said patient understands the problems better than the doctor.
To over come cultural boundaries, and other such problems, the doctor must become friends and form an attachment to the patient, the sociopathic wall must be taken down. Once invested in the patients' well being emotionally, the doctor is able to understand complaints better and pinpoint problems that are often missed in any mechanical examination.
This attachment offers further benefits in that the doctor is also more likely to understand the emotional state of the patient and know how it plays into their complaints. Emotions play a huge role in how we perceive things, my doctor recently discovered lumps in the area of my colon and all I can think about is "what if it's cancer?"
Because of this I am likely to forget to mention many other sensations associated with this problem, resulting in a missed diagnosis. A doctor who knows me well would know how afraid of surgery I am as well as how extremely high my pain tolerance is and prod for more information, while others will assume I have offered all the pertinent information.
This could be the difference between life and death, undiagnosed problems in the colon do kill patients quite often, even though a false positive for cancer can also be beneficial. So I have to figure out, on my own, what information is valid and what belongs to the other problem that has been ignored by doctors for a long time. The result is that I am under extremely high amounts of stress now.
This is a common result as well, patients go through a lot of anxiety when faced with a stranger for a doctor, even if they have seen this face several times before. This is not without a price, doctors will have to learn to govern their emotions like everyone else, not allowing one's anger or disgust get in the way of their activities.
Doctors will have to learn to avoid becoming violent when angry, like everyone else, and how to actually cope with loss and disappointment. The costs may seem high, but the rest of us have learned to do this, we can help doctors experience emotional attachments in a healthy way as well.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
False Causes - Breed Specific Legislation
There are many instances where statistical data is misused, from vaccines to GMO foods, and breed specific legislation. Speaking on the recent trends against pit bulls, though in the past it was dobermans and even chihuahuas.
Cities across the country are banning breeds based on one reported statistic, a statistic that changes every few years. If they were smart they'd look at the trends, a dog with the highest reported incidents of bites gets banned one year, a few years later it's a different dog. The previous dog bans are lifted and behold, that dog does not go back to the top spot again.
If breed had any real impact on it the bans would only have an effect when enacted, but we see that, in reality, they do not. Someone once said that when you observe something, the act of observing it alters it. This is the most probable reason the statistics keep changing.
Let's use an example we can all understand, the occurrence of autism. Autism was thought to be very rare in the past, due to a lack of attention on the subject only a small portion of the population knew much about it and the symptoms are usually difficult to spot.
So everyone just thought it was as rare as a human born with a tail. Medical scientists raised the awareness of autism as an attempt to garner more funds for research, suddenly almost everyone knew the disease existed, and the research got funding.
With the extra funding methods for diagnosing it improved drastically, combined with the now heightened awareness, more people with the illness were discovered. It was reported, and thus recorded, far more than before. A bunch of jerks then used this increased reporting as a scare tactic to gain money and fame.
It worked because people are panicky when they don't know the facts, and when in a panic they are easily swayed by pretty faces. Dog breed bans have also had the same kind of leeches, feeding on the panic they create by using a very simple phenomenon to create the appearance of a problem which does not really exist.
Statistics, for the most part, should only be read by scientists until the general population learns what confirmation bias means, and the media is banned from reporting false causes. Any animal, even the human animal, can be dangerous if they feel threatened. Any animal, even a rodent, can seriously harm the perceived threat.
Every dog is a pit bull, and every human is a pit bull as well. You just need to slant the statistics by altering the perception of the general public in a way to change what they notice.
Cities across the country are banning breeds based on one reported statistic, a statistic that changes every few years. If they were smart they'd look at the trends, a dog with the highest reported incidents of bites gets banned one year, a few years later it's a different dog. The previous dog bans are lifted and behold, that dog does not go back to the top spot again.
If breed had any real impact on it the bans would only have an effect when enacted, but we see that, in reality, they do not. Someone once said that when you observe something, the act of observing it alters it. This is the most probable reason the statistics keep changing.
Let's use an example we can all understand, the occurrence of autism. Autism was thought to be very rare in the past, due to a lack of attention on the subject only a small portion of the population knew much about it and the symptoms are usually difficult to spot.
So everyone just thought it was as rare as a human born with a tail. Medical scientists raised the awareness of autism as an attempt to garner more funds for research, suddenly almost everyone knew the disease existed, and the research got funding.
With the extra funding methods for diagnosing it improved drastically, combined with the now heightened awareness, more people with the illness were discovered. It was reported, and thus recorded, far more than before. A bunch of jerks then used this increased reporting as a scare tactic to gain money and fame.
It worked because people are panicky when they don't know the facts, and when in a panic they are easily swayed by pretty faces. Dog breed bans have also had the same kind of leeches, feeding on the panic they create by using a very simple phenomenon to create the appearance of a problem which does not really exist.
Statistics, for the most part, should only be read by scientists until the general population learns what confirmation bias means, and the media is banned from reporting false causes. Any animal, even the human animal, can be dangerous if they feel threatened. Any animal, even a rodent, can seriously harm the perceived threat.
Every dog is a pit bull, and every human is a pit bull as well. You just need to slant the statistics by altering the perception of the general public in a way to change what they notice.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Colisicopitus And Why You Should Care If You Have It
I have already detailed what evidence is, but religious people are still failing to comprehend this very basic principle of making claims no matter often it is explained to them. Often the burden of proof is shifted to the ones dismissing the claims made, but without evidence supporting the claim no contradicting evidence can be, or need be, presented to dismiss said claim.
There is a reason they shift the burden like this, it allows them to rationalize the rather idiotic notions and protect their delicate and precarious ideologies from doubt. It is the same reason none of them read their religious books honestly, or at all. Most christians have not once read the bible, no more than what's reprinted in a leaflet handed to them by their preachers.
If they did read it completely and honestly they would have to face just how ridiculous the stories are, and how much the claims contradict rather easily understood facts of reality. It is a pitiful state, and one that is only perpetuated by the christians salesmen, sorry, I mean preachers.
Religion is often described as a snake oil, the adage is very apt. Like snake oil, religion is a cure for an imaginary ailment, and like snake oil, religion never actually cures the ailment it claims to. So the salesmen can continually profit from those poor saps who are so easily fooled by offering a cure for an ailment that cannot be cured due to it's lack of existence.
Consider if someone told you have colisticopitus and they had this medicine made of dragon scales. If you take this medicine and believe it will work you will be cured of this horrible disease, but only this salesman can tell if it's been cured, no doctors or technology can detect or even diagnose it.
You ask what the symptoms are and you are told they are the most horrible things you can imagine, you will experience them many decades from now, but if you don't take the medicine now you will regret it. You ask how you catch it and the salesman says everyone is born with it, this disease is why you have to east food and sleep.
So you hand the salesman your credit card and let him keep charging you every week for a dose of this miracle cure for this horrible ailment that will cause horrible things to you someday in the distant future. You have just joined a religion.
There is a reason they shift the burden like this, it allows them to rationalize the rather idiotic notions and protect their delicate and precarious ideologies from doubt. It is the same reason none of them read their religious books honestly, or at all. Most christians have not once read the bible, no more than what's reprinted in a leaflet handed to them by their preachers.
If they did read it completely and honestly they would have to face just how ridiculous the stories are, and how much the claims contradict rather easily understood facts of reality. It is a pitiful state, and one that is only perpetuated by the christians salesmen, sorry, I mean preachers.
Religion is often described as a snake oil, the adage is very apt. Like snake oil, religion is a cure for an imaginary ailment, and like snake oil, religion never actually cures the ailment it claims to. So the salesmen can continually profit from those poor saps who are so easily fooled by offering a cure for an ailment that cannot be cured due to it's lack of existence.
Consider if someone told you have colisticopitus and they had this medicine made of dragon scales. If you take this medicine and believe it will work you will be cured of this horrible disease, but only this salesman can tell if it's been cured, no doctors or technology can detect or even diagnose it.
You ask what the symptoms are and you are told they are the most horrible things you can imagine, you will experience them many decades from now, but if you don't take the medicine now you will regret it. You ask how you catch it and the salesman says everyone is born with it, this disease is why you have to east food and sleep.
So you hand the salesman your credit card and let him keep charging you every week for a dose of this miracle cure for this horrible ailment that will cause horrible things to you someday in the distant future. You have just joined a religion.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Republicans Are Not Conservatives
The Republican party in the USA has not been conservative for many decades. Let's look at the ADA first, yes, the Americans with Disabilities Act was a Republican policy that the first George Bush signed in 1990.
This particular law was so intrusive that it opened the doors for many frivolous lawsuits, from people with disabilities, like me. This created a fear in companies, so they started not hiring disabled people as often, using things like credit scores as an excuse. Anyone disabled for a long time will have a horrible credit score, it comes with the disability.
The ADA was never a conservative policy, it was a Republican one. This act alone has caused a lot of USA citizens to fall through the cracks and vanish, even today many still cannot find any real help, and most of us do want to work but this deadly label hangs on us regardless of what we do. Republican supporters love living on the government dole though, it is an art form to them, attack what they enjoy doing to make themselves look superior.
The ADA is just one of many examples, several examples fit into one category; oppressive copyrights. Many voters here are under the misconception that cheaper labor costs are what have made China our source for products. This is not true, those labor costs are balanced out by the expensive shipping costs to get it to the USA.
What makes China appealing for companies is that they don't have the excessively strict copyright laws the USA has. Now both parties are guilty of supporting the laws in the USA that make it impossible to make key components or use vital procedures to make products here, but the Republicans are the ones who should be fighting to balance out these laws and keep them sane.
Conservatives know that oppressive copyrights can destroy an economy, and all true conservatives will oppose copyrights to balance out the liberal desires to protect a person's right to be paid for their work. The Republicans do not do this, because they are funded by some corporations in the USA that produce entertainment.
Yep, Disney and FOX, for example, are two corporations constantly pushing for stricter copyrights. Most music labels and Hollywood do as well. So what damage does this do?
Consider someone finds and formulates a cure for cancer that depends on a particular method of refinement. Getting their money for research back was a good way to encourage such research, so the basic copyright law of a few years was helpful in encouraging advancement. After those few years other companies can produce it and the cost will fall as the supply increases.
That was the idea behind copyright laws, but with the changes made by our government that one company has exclusive rights for that procedure forever. This means that those who need a cure for cancer must pay the company whatever price they decide to charge, for as long as that company exists. Apple and Microsoft take advantage of these copyright laws as well, thus the price hike before Google came up with a marketing strategy for Linux that broke their monopolies.
The Republican funders have a vested interest in copyright laws, they can now produce unpopular garbage and still get paid for the prime entertainment they produced several decades ago.
This particular law was so intrusive that it opened the doors for many frivolous lawsuits, from people with disabilities, like me. This created a fear in companies, so they started not hiring disabled people as often, using things like credit scores as an excuse. Anyone disabled for a long time will have a horrible credit score, it comes with the disability.
The ADA was never a conservative policy, it was a Republican one. This act alone has caused a lot of USA citizens to fall through the cracks and vanish, even today many still cannot find any real help, and most of us do want to work but this deadly label hangs on us regardless of what we do. Republican supporters love living on the government dole though, it is an art form to them, attack what they enjoy doing to make themselves look superior.
The ADA is just one of many examples, several examples fit into one category; oppressive copyrights. Many voters here are under the misconception that cheaper labor costs are what have made China our source for products. This is not true, those labor costs are balanced out by the expensive shipping costs to get it to the USA.
What makes China appealing for companies is that they don't have the excessively strict copyright laws the USA has. Now both parties are guilty of supporting the laws in the USA that make it impossible to make key components or use vital procedures to make products here, but the Republicans are the ones who should be fighting to balance out these laws and keep them sane.
Conservatives know that oppressive copyrights can destroy an economy, and all true conservatives will oppose copyrights to balance out the liberal desires to protect a person's right to be paid for their work. The Republicans do not do this, because they are funded by some corporations in the USA that produce entertainment.
Yep, Disney and FOX, for example, are two corporations constantly pushing for stricter copyrights. Most music labels and Hollywood do as well. So what damage does this do?
Consider someone finds and formulates a cure for cancer that depends on a particular method of refinement. Getting their money for research back was a good way to encourage such research, so the basic copyright law of a few years was helpful in encouraging advancement. After those few years other companies can produce it and the cost will fall as the supply increases.
That was the idea behind copyright laws, but with the changes made by our government that one company has exclusive rights for that procedure forever. This means that those who need a cure for cancer must pay the company whatever price they decide to charge, for as long as that company exists. Apple and Microsoft take advantage of these copyright laws as well, thus the price hike before Google came up with a marketing strategy for Linux that broke their monopolies.
The Republican funders have a vested interest in copyright laws, they can now produce unpopular garbage and still get paid for the prime entertainment they produced several decades ago.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
The Actual Definition of Biological Evolution
Here it is, an end to the lies and rumors, I will define what biological evolution is and give away the greatest secret scientists have been keeping from the general public. But first, let's look at what biological evolution is not.
Biological evolution is not morphing, one species does not turn into another species in any way. If such a thing did happen most biological theories would have to be radically altered to account for something which defies even the theory of evolution.
Many series of fiction use evolution to describe morphing, usually because the creators did not know better or it just had better response from the target audience. Such a genetic change in an organism would cause the body to be overtaken by cancerous tumors, the physiology would be so chaotic that organs would fail and poisons would be produced instead of the necessary chemicals.
Transitional forms do not look like one organism with the traits of two distinct organisms. I say "look" to mean appear, most small changes would have no change in the organism's appearance. A small change in the DNA is up to several hundred genetic changes, compound/colony species such as humans can and will have more than single celled animals.
In human DNA, upwards of five hundred changes in the DNA will result in less than 0.001% difference in the genetic make up. Each offspring has several hundred mutations in their DNA, most have absolutely no effect either because those markers are "switched off" or the new chemical produced has no effect on the cells.
When a marker or chromosome is "switched off" it means the DNA has a chemical bound to that location which prevents it from acting as a template for other chemicals. DNA is actually pretty simple to understand, it's like a chemical template, that attracts other chemicals in a sequence that causes them to bond then separate and react with other chemicals. The effects of these chemicals are the complex part of genetics, one that we are still working out.
Biological evolution is not one species giving birth to another completely different species. The number of changes required for this would result in a cancerous tumor instead of an offspring. We're talking about at least 1% of the DNA changing before an organism can even be almost another species, many species are separated by more than a 2% difference and can still breed with each other.
What actually defines the species barrier is virtually arbitrary, it depends on the species and how many different single celled organisms make it's whole. The chemicals produced by the DNA interactions determine the compatibility for producing offspring, not the DNA itself. Each cell is made up of chemicals produced by DNA, and incompatible cells, ie chemicals, cannot mingle.
Now, for the moment you have all been reading for, I shall unveil the true definition of biological evolution that is used by the highest levels of academia and scientific research. Be ready to make note of this momentous occasion for you may not likely ever read it again.
Biological Evolution: the change of frequencies of allele within in population.
Stereotypes - The Root of Racism
The problems of racism are obfuscated by really bad arguments, and justified anger and fear. Racism is alive in the USA, though it is less wide spread than the outrage makes it seem.
The latest police misconduct stories have demonstrated that it does still exist, and is fueled by stereotyping. The problem is deeper though, as a culture we tolerate stereotyping "as long as it's not about me." This is giving them permission to stereotype you as well, if one form is valid all forms are seen as valid.
One such example is our worshiping of the opinions of psychiatrists, a profession built on enforcing stereotypes into the population. Psychiatrists are the biggest problem, if you don't fit the stereotype then they get you medicated until you do fit the stereotype. This has caused most people think these stereotypes are accurate as well as perpetuate discrimination of all types.
The police are feeling the full weight of this now, most cops are not bad and many are just as outraged by the actions of those in less advanced locales. But these officers who are outraged are ignored and silenced because they don't fit the stereotype the general public holds.
To end racism, one famous actor said we just need to stop talking about it. This is actually a good idea, but not on the surface. We must continue to talk about the effects of racism to keep our eyes open to it, but we must end all stereotypes for everyone.
That includes stereotypes for gay, transgender, black, white, cop, soldier, actor, everyone. For when one stereotype if acceptable, they all become acceptable. End the discussion by eliminating the source, yes, be rid of psychiatry.
Psychology is science based, psychiatry is woo woo. Psychiatrists are only interested in engineering our society to fit their stereotypes, the very stereotypes that give excuse to cops shooting unarmed black kids, the very stereotypes that give excuse to a group of teens killing a gay man, the very stereotypes that give excuse to consider actors as less intelligent.
The latest police misconduct stories have demonstrated that it does still exist, and is fueled by stereotyping. The problem is deeper though, as a culture we tolerate stereotyping "as long as it's not about me." This is giving them permission to stereotype you as well, if one form is valid all forms are seen as valid.
One such example is our worshiping of the opinions of psychiatrists, a profession built on enforcing stereotypes into the population. Psychiatrists are the biggest problem, if you don't fit the stereotype then they get you medicated until you do fit the stereotype. This has caused most people think these stereotypes are accurate as well as perpetuate discrimination of all types.
The police are feeling the full weight of this now, most cops are not bad and many are just as outraged by the actions of those in less advanced locales. But these officers who are outraged are ignored and silenced because they don't fit the stereotype the general public holds.
To end racism, one famous actor said we just need to stop talking about it. This is actually a good idea, but not on the surface. We must continue to talk about the effects of racism to keep our eyes open to it, but we must end all stereotypes for everyone.
That includes stereotypes for gay, transgender, black, white, cop, soldier, actor, everyone. For when one stereotype if acceptable, they all become acceptable. End the discussion by eliminating the source, yes, be rid of psychiatry.
Psychology is science based, psychiatry is woo woo. Psychiatrists are only interested in engineering our society to fit their stereotypes, the very stereotypes that give excuse to cops shooting unarmed black kids, the very stereotypes that give excuse to a group of teens killing a gay man, the very stereotypes that give excuse to consider actors as less intelligent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)