Deep Thought

These reasonings are unconnected: 

 "I am richer than you, therefore I am better";

 "I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better." 

The connection is rather this:

 "I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours;"

 "I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours."

 But you, after all, are neither property nor style. 

Epicurus

Endearment

Words of the day

noun
a word or phrase expressing love or affection.


Nigger
a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person.

Bitch
informal, derogatory a spiteful or unpleasant woman.
• black slang a woman.
• a person who is completely subservient to another

whore
noun derogatory
a prostitute.
• a promiscuous woman.

slut
noun
a slovenly or promiscuous woman.

Cunt
noun, Slang: Vulgar.
The vulva or vagina
Extremely Disparaging and Offensive
a contemptuous term used to refer to a woman
a term used to refer to a contemptible person


Insult
verb
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse

Disparage
verb
regard or represent as being of little worth

Degrade
verb
treat or regard (someone) with contempt or disrespect

Derogatory
adjective
showing a critical or disrespectful attitude

Why are you saying it?
Why do you feel the need to say it?
Who is it directed to?
What do you want to convey to them?
Are you repeating what you heard?
Do you understand the context?
Why are you so eager to insult someone?

If you change it to bish, what are you saying?
If you change it to nigga, what are you saying?

Why do you want to insult others?
Why do you seek permission to insult people?
Why do you want to use insults to address your friends or those you love?

If you ain't got nothing nice to say...

repost from Jun 20, 2012

Identity, Behavior, Attraction

Identity, behavior, attraction, and orientation are not the same.
Granted, about 80% of people in Western nations will identify as straight, be solely attracted to the opposite sex and only have sexual contact with the opposite sex.
That percentage drops dramatically when surveying teens, to around 40-50%.
That leaves 20% of the population who hold some sort of same sex attraction but their identity range from straight to gay; and that identity might change throughout their lifetime. Not to mention same sex behavior, however it is motivated.



CDC 2013 study published in 2016

Table 2. women aged 18-44
81% were only attracted to the opposite sex and
0.8% were only attracted to the same sex.
1.2% weren't sure.
The rest (16.9) were attracted to both in some degree.

Table 3. women aged 18-44
92.3% identified as heterosexual,
1.3% identified as lesbian, gay, or homosexual.
5.5% identified as bisexual,
0.9% didn't report.
 as something else was dropped from the survey.

As usual, when you narrow the age to younger women (18-24),
reported same sex attraction increases (22.4) and
heterosexual identity drops (89.5%).

2013 CDC study
They only questioned sexual identity
which I think is a shame. The study should be as comprehensive, if not more, than the last study.
Among all U.S. adults aged 18 and over,
96.6% identified as straight,
1.6% identified as gay or lesbian,
and 0.7% identified as bisexual.
The remaining 1.1% of adults chose:
‘‘something else’’ (0.2%),
selected ‘‘I don’t know the answer’’ (0.4%),
or refused to provide an answer (0.6%).
They threw out the 1.1% and the numbers changed, As shown in the study provided.

There is a 2013 Pew Research survey
That only surveys LGB identified people (1,197 people).
The discrepancies between identity and attraction still exists
People wonder why most Bisexual people in this survey have partners of the opposite sex (84%)
It's partially in the numbers,
For bisexual women,
13% report being mostly attracted to the opposite sex
34% report being attracted to the opposite sex more
31% report being attracted to the sexes equally.
That's at least 47% that are geared towards the opposite sex
78% that could easily be in relationships with the opposite sex.
6% who chose the opposite sex for whatever reason.

For the record, only 78% of the lesbians surveyed were mostly attracted to the same sex.

CDC national health report
In the cdc report.

Table 5. women aged 15-44.
12.5(0.8)% have had same sex contact with another woman.
The highest was women aged 20-24 at 15.8(1.8)%

Table 11. women aged 18-44.
83.3(1.1)% were only attracted to the opposite sex and
0.8(0.2)% were only attracted to the same sex.
 0.7(0.1)% weren't sure.
The rest (15.3%) were attracted to both in some degree.

women aged 20-24.
only 77.6(2.3)% were only attracted to the opposite sex and
0.8(0.3)% were only attracted to the same sex.
0.4(0.2)% weren't sure.
The rest (21.2%) were attracted to both in some degree

Table 12. women aged 18-44.
93.7(0.5)% identified as heterosexual,
1.1(0.2)% identified as lesbian, gay, or homosexual.
3.5(0.3)% identified as bisexual,
 0.6(0.1)% as something else, and
 1.1 (0.2)% didn't report.

women aged 20-24.
6.3 (1.1)% identified as bisexual

Table 14. women aged 18-44.
4.6(0.6)% of women who said they were only attracted to the opposite sex still had sexual contact with the same sex.
9.0(0.7)% of Women who identified as heterosexual still had sexual contact with the same sex.


Even this study is skewed because same sex behavior For females, includes oral sex or any sexual experience,
For males, includes oral or anal sex with male partners.

This study, the most comprehensive and the one with the highest sample size (56,032), shows a discrepancy in identity and attraction.

how many people are lgbt

how students identify

UK Research report 35: Sexual orientation explored

british kinsey scale study

discrepancies in adolescents
a study done in Quebec of 1,951 students

Twelve percent of adolescents (n=237) endorsed at least one measure of nonexclusive heterosexuality.
A total of 3.4% reported gay/lesbian or bisexual (GLB) identity
(another 3.4% were unsure),
9.0% reported same-gender attraction, and
4.0% same-gender behavior.
There was no consistent pattern of overlap between the three measures, and no single dimension effectively captured this population.
The question about attraction identified 71%;
identity identified 52%; and
behavior only 31%.
In raw numbers, more heterosexually identified students reported same-gender attraction (n=95) or same-gender behavior (n=33) than
GLB-identified students (n=44 and 29, respectively).

And other scholars see a distinction too.

"...I use the term "sexual orientation" to mean a consistent, enduring pattern of sexual desire for individuals of the same sex, the other sex, or both sexes, regardless of whether this pattern of desire is manifested in sexual behavior. A woman can have a lesbian orientation but never have a same-sex relationship, just as she can have a heterosexual orientation and still pursue multiple samesex affairs. Most scientists consider desire, not behavior, the marker of sexual orientation. "Sexual identity" refers to a culturally organized conception of the self, usually "lesbian/gay," "bisexual," or "heterosexual." As with sexual orientation, we cannot presume that these identities correspond to particular patterns of behavior. Nor can we presume that they correspond to particular patterns of desire. Because sexual identities represent self-concepts, they depend on individuals' own notions about the most important aspects of their sexual selves. These notions, as we will see, can vary quite a bit from individual to individual. Moreover, some people—particularly women—reject conventional lesbian/gay/bisexual identity labels in favor of alternative labels such as "queer," "questioning," or "pansexual." Others reject all identity labels in order to make room for a broad range of sexual possibilities, as well as to acknowledge the fact that all labels are somewhat arbitrary"- Lisa Diamond

Side note, Here is the conclusion of Lisa Diamond's study:

Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study:

The findings of this research suggest that there are, in fact, appreciable boundaries between the long-term developmental trajectories of lesbian, bisexual, and unlabeled women, but these boundaries are relatively fluid. 

Hence, the present study supports the notion of bisexuality as a third type of sexual orientation and also supports the notion of bisexuality as a capacity for context-specific flexibility in erotic response. In contrast, the findings are inconsistent with the long-debated notion of bisexuality as a transitional stage or “phase.” 

Of course, this study is limited by its reliance on a small (79), exclusively female, disproportionately White and middle-class sample, and future research on larger and more diverse samples of sexual-minority women and men is important for determining the generalizability of the findings.

 Nonetheless, the results have important social and scientific implications. They contribute to researchers' emerging scientific understanding of the basic nature and longitudinal development of female sexual orientation, and they provide critically important information for educators and clinicians attempting to understand the distinct challenges and meet the unique needs of bisexual individuals over the life course.

I've seen this study used to draw conclusions about female sexuality in broader populations, that is a misuse of the data. The sample size is too small and narrow to draw any broader conclusions. This data just shows that Bisexuality is not a phase.

Reading is Fundamental

revised from 1/30/12

Deep Thought

Can't help but worry about people who are afraid of/hate people they've never even met. 

But maybe I shouldn't worry about people I haven't met. 

Deep Thought

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.'

No good or evil

No them

No enemy

Only us

We are capable of every good

And every evil

Only we can destroy ourselves 

Only we can save ourselves 

Agnostic Christian

I'm Christian concerning my conduct. 

I'm agnostic concerning other people's conduct. 

My Christianity guides my own purpose and actions. 

Reason guides how I view other people. 

Word of the Day

(Mis)Appropriation

Say you had a family member who was a mentor to you.
They were very talented, artistic.
They made clothing or whatever.
Say they taught you everything they know and the special meaning that exists in creating it.
Say they learned it from their parents. It's a time honored tradition in your family.
Then they die.
You carry on their creation
Let's say you wear the clothes to school/work.
Your colleagues laugh at you. Say you look stupid.
Call you a slut or the like. Tell you you can't wear it around them.
All kinds of grief.
Forward say a year later. One of your colleagues shows up wearing the same thing.
Your colleagues applaud him. Copy him. Your colleague claims they are the ones who created it.
Then, they put the design up for sale and make money.
Your time honored tradition for profit.
While they shamed you.
This is (mis)appropriation.
Not because someone just says so.
Because this has happened numerous times to numerous peoples.

Now, everything is not (mis)appropriation.
If one has permission to wear, use, or profit from something not their own, then so be it.
It it is sold/given to you by the people of that culture, then so be it.
Humans have created similar cultural products independent of each other. Hair styles included. Before you accuse others of (mis)appropriation, you may want to take a look back into their history to see if their culture had those traits.
It's hard to tell and deserves further investigation not just assumptions.

BUT,
if you are going to wear or use something that is not your own, and don't want to seem like an asshole.
do some research,
Find out what it means, who originated it, where it came from, its significance to its origin culture.

noun

1 the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission

• often derogatory the artistic practice or technique of reworking images from well-known paintings, photographs, etc., in one's own work.

Who controls the world

Political independence does not necessarily mean economic independence.
In the case of developing and least developed countries, it is the opposite.

When people complain that African countries can't get their shit together, well that's bullshit because those countries don't have any shit to get together.

When Europe allowed independence after colonialism, they ensured those new governors were subservient.
They ensured the resources were already held by foreign interests.
They then gave out loans under the guise of helping those nations improve their lot.
These are loans that can never be paid because of interest and no plan to actually help create the capital to pay those loans and provide for themselves.
Nothing of worth in these countries is owned by the native people.

The sole purpose of these countries is to provide labor and resources for developed nations.
It's like these countries are in debt bondage to the developed countries.

No sex in your violence

Why does culture value violence over sex?
Why is sex taboo yet people hurt each other for public entertainment?

What if our society treated sex as they do violence?
What if the issues were switched?
What if sex was openly enjoyed and violence made taboo?

Of course some christians abhor violence; but you don't see them protesting it to the degree that they do for sex.

Of course there are christians who fully support violence for entertainment.

If you are attracted to someone and the attraction is mutual, why resist?
If sex is consensual, what are valid barriers?
Other than one or both being in exclusive relationships.

Why does sex have to be exclusive to a married couple,
yet consensual violence between anyone is fine?

Deep Thought

No one is immune from bullshit

Speaking it or believing it. 

Deep Thought

Being celibate is like being vegan...

Deep Thought

Don't expect anyone else to tell your story

Deep Thought

A Christian Iloko was on his deathbed, and a catholic priest, trying to persuade him to repent of his sin, painted to him vividly the horrors of hell; but the dying man merely answered,

"If God wants me to go to hell, I am perfectly willing."

Dorothy Lee

Religious Perspectives in Anthropology

Cultural relativism and defense

I don't defend America because I think it is the best,
I defend it because it is my home.

Dream house

Master bedroom

Fireplace

Walk in closet

Attached bathroom

claw foot tub 

Separate shower

Vessel Sink

Separate toilet area

Bidet

Guest bedroom

Attached bathroom

Standard with shower

Library

Office

Music room

Dining room

Kitchen

Center 

Separate refrigerator and freezer

Solarium

Balcony

Bedroom

Pool 

25 m

Storage Shed

Two car garage

Front porch

With swing

Free Speech

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-First Amendment

You, as an American, can say whatever you want without any legal ramifications.
Oops, sorry, I forgot about the FCC.
My point is, don't expect to say whatever you want without any consequences whatsoever.

I'm not talking about PC,
I'm talking common sense.
Funding for your broadcast is a privilege not a right. Say something stupid and you may lose your sponsors... bye bye broadcast.
Owning a business is a privilege not a right. Say something stupid and you may lose your customers... and your business
You have the right to say whatever you want; others have the right to protest.

on the other side. With the internet and media reaching more people and more people having a platform for their opinions
I will do myself a service and continue to chill
Others have the right to their opinions and they have access to platforms that potentially reaches billions

Doesn't mean I have to listen. I don't have to give anyone my time. No one deserves my emotions
Just because you have a platform doesn't mean your opinion is rational or valid.
I have the right to walk away.
To ignore
To choose another form of entertainment.
This is for my own well being.
I don't have to and I shouldn't give audience to everyone who has a voice.

Sometimes it is better for me to ignore than to respond.


Question myself to see if a dialogue will create progress.


updated from
Apr 8, 2008

Deep question

Is it possible to maintain a distinct culture without geographic isolation?

I say it's impossible 

Cultural traits evolve, mix and mingle when people are introduced to one another.

On cultural (mis)appropriation...
What is bullshit is when one group shames another for their beliefs, art, etc.
Then take those traits as their own and profits from them. Still shaming the origin group.
Profiting off of the origin group's cultural traits and denying the origin group the ability to profit. Cornering the market on another group's cultural commodities.

Deep Thought

...The goal of freedom can ultimately be realized only in and through fellowship or community...

Frank G. Kirkpatrick

Deep Thought

Into this world, this demented inn,

in which there is absolutely no room for Him at all,

Christ has come uninvited.

But because He cannot be at home in it,

because He is out of place in it, and yet he must be in it,

His place is with those others for whom there is no room.

His place is with those who do not belong,

who are rejected by power because they are regarded as weak,

those who are discredited,

who are denied the status of persons, tortured, excommunicated.

With those for whom there is no room,

Christ is present in this world.


~ Thomas Merton, Raids on the Unspeakable

The epitome of love

Deep Thoughts

Everything you think Or say about someone you don't know is invalid 

Deep Thoughts

"If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. 

If you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”

Words used by Lilla Watson, Aboriginal elder, activist and educator from Queensland, Australia.

First law of property rights

Everything doesn't have to be owned.

Which leads to egalitarian principles:
Things that are made naturally should not be owned.
Water, land, subterranean resources
there is something to be said about the effort that goes into procuring subterranean resources and creating potable water from unhealthy sources.

If you make it, you own it.
If it is gifted to you by someone who made it, you own it.
Property is yours during the time you are actively using it; this is temporary.

Race does exist

as a psuedoscience

biomes
what influences phenotypic development, how phenotypes develope, the purpose of phenotypes

Melanin is used to protect us from the sun while allowing us to benefit from the sun
The purpose of your phenotype is to give you an advantage to survive the physical environment that your ancestors thrived in.

What's sadly amazing is that some traits that developed due to sun exposure and terrain of ancestors are used to define people.

Our use of race is illogical. We see a trait, color, and notice that it is almost always seen in conjunction with something else, culture. Even though the physical traits actually aren't associated with a culture. So we assume that phenotype determines our culture. When, in fact, it's the environment that determines both phenotype and culture.
phenotype doesn't determine anything about you except your ability to produce Vitamin D. And it is greatly insignificant in the nature of human existence.

Analogous to actual colors. We have RGB Cones. If one told you that the only colors that existed were Red, Green and Blue, I hope you would dismiss this as nonsensical. There are an infinite possibility of colors without a distinguishable boundary between each. Just as there is much more than European, Asian and African.

Categories minimize humanity
I think categories take away from the unique experiences.
Categories breed preconceived notions. Preconceived notions build up false expectations. False expectations affect how you are treated.
If I categorize myself as a nigga, I assign a list of characteristics and definitions to that category. Unfortunately, all others see is the category. They will assign their own definitions and lists of characteristics. That's why black people shouldn't use the word.

Labels and categories have always been used to separate/segregate us.
Some people call race a social construct. I have one deeper
Race, as an economic construct, is a successful tactic better known as 'divide and conquer'

The 'economic  construct' of race was developed so the wealthy could maintain their power and control. That's how the term white and black came about. Rich business owners (plantation owners) used African and European workers. Europeans and Africans banded together against the elite. The elitist learned their lesson and began to tell the European workers that the Africans were beneath them and a threat to them; successfully employing divide and conquer. It's a constant tool of elitist because we always fall for it. If you look throughout history, EVERY time a different nationality migrates to America, Somehow they are a threat to working class Americans. The Italians, the Asians, the Irish, the Jews, the Blacks, etc... and now the Mexicans. It's the same ploy over and over again, because if the workers united (from every nationality) and realized that we were all being disenfranchised, there would be a great rebellion. You know the 10% with the 85%? Well, they'd be ass out.

Race is an economic invention. Racial categories invented by the government. And the government can't even be consistent with it's categorizations.
People are being used. Especially European Americans. Used to divide workers and allow wealth to rise to the top.

We are all unique individuals just like everyone else.
I see beyond race. Which is different than saying I don't see race. I see it.
I'm not saying I'm perfect. Human nature is lazy. We want the most amount of information with little effort. But I realize that first impressions are bullshit. Just ask your ex.

Each individual is a complex mystery; worse yet, an ever-changing mystery. When I see a stranger I have to constantly remind myself that I don't know shit about them. Even if they tell me things about them, it's only what they want me to know, not really who they are. They could be frontin'. They could be having a shitty day.

Categories hinder us from being completely mindful when interacting with other people. Why be mindful when I think I already know what I expect you to be. Seeing your race means I THINK I know about all your daily experiences and I end up sympathizing with this false human being that may be nothing like you.


Race:

each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics: people of all races, colors, and creeds.

Although ideas of race are centuries old, it was not until the 19th century that attempts to systematize racial divisions were made. Ideas of supposed racial superiority and social Darwinism reached their culmination in Nazi ideology of the 1930s and gave pseudoscientific justification to policies and attitudes of discrimination, exploitation, slavery, and extermination. Theories of race asserting a link between racial type and intelligence are now discredited. Scientifically it is accepted as obvious that there are subdivisions of the human species, but it is also clear that genetic variation between individuals of the same race can be as great as that between members of different races.

*Updated from Nov 2009 *updated from Dec 2015?

Does power corrupt or do the corrupt want power

I'm weary of anyone who thinks they can/should control other people's lives (especially people they don't know/have never met).
Politics isn't about deriving power from the consent of the governed like it's supposed to be
It's about making decisions for others, whether they like it or not
It's about doing the bidding of those who control resources and capital.

I don't like the idea of giving anyone that kind of power and I don't trust anyone who wants that kind of power
The constitution talks of representatives
A representative must get consent from a client when making decisions for them
They must let the client know the decisions they are making and allow them to accept or deny
Politicians consider themselves leaders
They are not.
Their duty is to secure our rights
Not lead us or make decisions for us

*update from April 2013

Enslavement

I've seen people who want to highlight the fact that white people in America were enslaved too. As if people didn't know that. As if this fact invalidates racism. I want people to look further and ask some questions.
Throughout history, what was the common denominator of the people who enslaved others? Or rather, What traits did slave owners share? What method did they use to enslave people? Who allowed them to enslave people?
Who were the first people who were enslaved after America was 'discovered'? Why did they choose to kidnap people from another country and use them as labor? What was their justification? What methods did they use to enslave their fellow Europeans? Why did they stop using Europeans as slaves in the antebellum South? What did free citizens do in regards to the enslavement of other human beings?
What happened when slaves rebelled or escaped?
Hopefully those questions will spark other questions...

Slavery isn't about race.
Race is about dividing people so you can control them.

Then I want you to realize that slavery is still being practiced in the world, including in America. It never stopped. Many people of different origins are being forced into labor, beaten, being sexually assaulted/raped, and murdered. This includes children.
American citizens (including children) are being kidnapped from their homes and are being used as prostitutes.

I can't say that history will repeat itself because it's just being perpetuated. They call it human trafficking now.

*updated from February 2012

Deep thought

Those who control the past

Control the future

Those who control the present 

Control the past

George Orwell 

Deep thoughts

Human relations would be better if we only talked to (or about) people that we meet face to face

Division

Addressing 'those people' and what 'they' do

Your proclamations can only be borne of ignorance

When you talk about people you don't even know

Addressing people by groups

'They are dangerous...'

-'who is they?'

'The people who are...'

-'Do you know someone by name?'

'Well, no'

-'then you really don't know what you are talking about'

Again how can your claims be taken seriously When you don't even know who you're talking about?

How valid is any claim you make against someone you don't know?

Deep thought

If economics must be governed by politics

Politics must be governed by the people 

What is sin

Pain and longing

Lost and afraid

Blinded by own suffering 

Can't see the suffering of others 

Shared Inheritance

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
LAUDATO SI’
OF THE HOLY FATHER
FRANCIS
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME

CHAPTER TWO

THE GOSPEL OF CREATION
VI. THE COMMON DESTINATION OF GOODS

93. Whether believers or not, we are agreed today that the earth is essentially a shared inheritance, whose fruits are meant to benefit everyone.

For believers, this becomes a question of fidelity to the Creator, since God created the world for everyone. Hence every ecological approach needs to incorporate a social perspective which takes into account the fundamental rights of the poor and the underprivileged.

The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a golden rule of social conduct and “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order”.
[71 JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), 19: AAS 73 (1981), 626.]

The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property.

Saint John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this teaching, stating that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone”.
[72 Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 31: AAS 83 (1991), 831.] These are strong words.
He noted that “a type of development which did not respect and promote human rights – personal and social, economic and political, including the rights of nations and of peoples – would not be really worthy of man”.
[73 Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 33: AAS 80 (1988), 557.]

He clearly explained that “the Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property, but she also teaches no less clearly that there is always a social mortgage on all private property, in order that goods may serve the general purpose that God gave them”.
[74 Address to Indigenous and Rural People, Cuilapán, Mexico (29 January 1979), 6: AAS 71 (1979), 209.]
Consequently, he maintained, “it is not in accord with God’s plan that this gift be used in such a way that its benefits favour only a few”.
[75 Homily at Mass for Farmers, Recife, Brazil (7 July 1980): AAS 72 (1980): AAS 72 (1980), 926.]

This calls into serious question the unjust habits of a part of humanity.
[76 Cf. Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, 8: AAS 82 (1990), 152.]

95. The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone.

If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all.
If we do not, we burden our consciences with the weight of having denied the existence of others.

That is why the New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment “Thou shall not kill” means when “twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive”.
[78 NEW ZEALAND CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE, Statement on Environmental Issues (1 September 2006).]

Laudato si'