I found this interesting and thought I would share. There was a study conducted and published in Evolutionary Psychology on money spent vs # of sexual partners and what do you know: men who spent more had more and there was no correlation for money women spent vs # of partners. "The degree of financial consumption was directly related to future mating intentions and past mating success, even when accounting for age, years of education completed, and marital status" but did not correlate with women and their expenditure etc.This makes sense when you just think of something as basic as women getting free drinks in a bar from guys they are not interested in - guys gotta spend $$ and women never have to do that.
So all that talk by women that they don't care about money makes you wonder why men who spend more, and many even go into debt to show off material wealth, have had and will have more partners - many women obviously act differently than what they claim!
Here is the link to the study in Evolutionary Psychology Male Financial Consumption is Associated with Higher Mating Intentions and Mating Success
Friday, December 12, 2008
Great Gift Idea
Alright so I was driving in to school today and listening to CBC radio where they interviewed this 8 year old Alec Greven, the author of How to talk to Girls. This kid is incredibly well spoken, polite, funny and smart. His two main points are "get over it" because 98% of the "pretty girls" (i.e., superficial) will dump you anyway so don't let it ruin your life and "comb your hair and don't wear sweats" which is of course sound advice for anyone trying to impress.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Gay Marriage
Alright, so I was watching the Daily Show couple nights ago and Mike Huckabee was the guest. After watching that interview I definitely have some things to say and ask everyone. I am sick and tired of hearing about the "traditional" definition or the "5000 years of tradition of marriage" or especially the fact that "70% or 80% or whatever percentage of the nation want to deny marriage to same sex couple - all of these claims are pure crap!.
First one is the traditional definition which goes hand in hand with the 5000 year old tradition: in today's society marriage is not about the traditional definition of marriage. The 5000 year old tradition included the fact that women were the property of men. Adultery was a crime only if it was with a married woman because the woman was property and the man would be stealing another man's property, as well as they should both be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22; we don't seem to carry on this sort of tradition now do we?). Which brings us to the fact that when the government decided to start issuing the license (I think the first was around 1923) the whole tradition argument became moot! It was no longer a religious act but a state act, and even when still done in the church we are not trying to force churches to do anything in their ceremony that they don't want to: this is about the legal state agreement. Religions should have made a better argument to keep "marriage" in only the religious context back then and make the legal agreement separate (many religious people tried to argue that it was bigamy or heretical or whatever to be married in the church and in the state etc but no-one makes those arguments anymore). And if they are serious about the traditional "marriage" they should be arguing to stop all of the drive-thru and/or elvis impersonating marriages, as well as plain legal ceremonies at the courthouse - all of which go against the so-called "traditional marriage".
The idea that marriage is about having kids and supporting the next generation means nothing - way too many couples are married and have no intention of having kids. There are lots of biblical definitions of marriage that no one is arguing for now like brothers having to marry widowed sister-in-laws (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10), death to non-virginal brides (Deut 22:13-21), or my favorite that marriage will not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21). And don't do the whole old testament vs new because the new does not refute these AND proponents always say - thousands of years old tradition which goes to the old testament; you never hear the "1200 - 2000 year old tradition because we don't really know when all of the new testament was written arguments now do you?). And what about the traditions of other religions for thousands of years - would they get same billing just because of their long standing tradition?
When the government started issuing licenses which included tax deductions, the right to walk into a hospital and ask the doctor what is wrong with your partner (and not be told family only), the right to share health benefits, the ability to retain these rights when you travel to other states or countries etc. (link for US people), automatically being the next of kin when your loved one dies and not having to add legal battles to your time of sorrow, and so many more rights taken for granted by straight couples ...........which are all instantly obtained by saying "I DO" for any jack-ass man/woman couple regardless.
The percentage of people who don't want gay marriage and therefore "majority rules" is another horrible argument. Majority does rule for most issues unless it involves discrimination or violates basic human rights, which is why we have the bill of rights and is why women can now vote, minorities have rights, and interracial couples can marry: all of these were things that the "majority" of the country did not want at one time and these rights were not a result of changing the majority opinion/mindset but rather legally deciding that everyone deserved these rights regardless of the majority opinion.
This brings us to another argument which is that many people accept rights for minorities, women, interracial etc., but are still against gay rights because people think this is some sort of "choice". Jon Stewart made a great comment to Huckabee on this issue - "when did you decide to NOT be gay?". No one decides this and in fact religion has been shown to be way more of a CHOICE and look at the protection, special treatment and outright bend-over-backwards treatment they get!
There is so much scientific data on homosexuality in animals and differences physiologically, anatomically, and genetically between heterosexuals and homosexuals, as well as several studies showing homosexuality in males may be related to highly fertile mothers or that have shown how individuals related to homosexuals have better reproductive success.
Final note - there is a reason why majority rules is not always the final answer - mobs do stupid things and we as a society have already realized this and established specific protections (constitution and bill of rights come to mind); we just seem to forget this each time something new comes up and babble on about tradition, always this way or the bible says so - and all of these arguments have been shown many times throughout history to be bad premises. So ask yourself if you have made these same arguments in your head and why? What would you rally say to someone lose to you who was gay and asked you why you don't let them have the same rights? How would you justify it to this person you care so much about and consider a friend or loved one? (assuming at least that you are not among the ignorant homophobic hate group - for those of you the discussion would be very different).
Ok one more side note, I read a blog of someone (can't remember where) who whenever anyone said this is my husband or wife etc. they would use boyfriend or girlfriend or partner when referring to the other person's partner and when corrected about them being a wife/husband they would respond "my religion/faith doesn't recognize your marriage" which I think may be extreme but I LIKE IT and plan on using that some day for sure! How would that make you feel if other people questioned your commitment and love for your partner as well as its validity?
First one is the traditional definition which goes hand in hand with the 5000 year old tradition: in today's society marriage is not about the traditional definition of marriage. The 5000 year old tradition included the fact that women were the property of men. Adultery was a crime only if it was with a married woman because the woman was property and the man would be stealing another man's property, as well as they should both be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22; we don't seem to carry on this sort of tradition now do we?). Which brings us to the fact that when the government decided to start issuing the license (I think the first was around 1923) the whole tradition argument became moot! It was no longer a religious act but a state act, and even when still done in the church we are not trying to force churches to do anything in their ceremony that they don't want to: this is about the legal state agreement. Religions should have made a better argument to keep "marriage" in only the religious context back then and make the legal agreement separate (many religious people tried to argue that it was bigamy or heretical or whatever to be married in the church and in the state etc but no-one makes those arguments anymore). And if they are serious about the traditional "marriage" they should be arguing to stop all of the drive-thru and/or elvis impersonating marriages, as well as plain legal ceremonies at the courthouse - all of which go against the so-called "traditional marriage".
The idea that marriage is about having kids and supporting the next generation means nothing - way too many couples are married and have no intention of having kids. There are lots of biblical definitions of marriage that no one is arguing for now like brothers having to marry widowed sister-in-laws (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10), death to non-virginal brides (Deut 22:13-21), or my favorite that marriage will not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21). And don't do the whole old testament vs new because the new does not refute these AND proponents always say - thousands of years old tradition which goes to the old testament; you never hear the "1200 - 2000 year old tradition because we don't really know when all of the new testament was written arguments now do you?). And what about the traditions of other religions for thousands of years - would they get same billing just because of their long standing tradition?
When the government started issuing licenses which included tax deductions, the right to walk into a hospital and ask the doctor what is wrong with your partner (and not be told family only), the right to share health benefits, the ability to retain these rights when you travel to other states or countries etc. (link for US people), automatically being the next of kin when your loved one dies and not having to add legal battles to your time of sorrow, and so many more rights taken for granted by straight couples ...........which are all instantly obtained by saying "I DO" for any jack-ass man/woman couple regardless.
The percentage of people who don't want gay marriage and therefore "majority rules" is another horrible argument. Majority does rule for most issues unless it involves discrimination or violates basic human rights, which is why we have the bill of rights and is why women can now vote, minorities have rights, and interracial couples can marry: all of these were things that the "majority" of the country did not want at one time and these rights were not a result of changing the majority opinion/mindset but rather legally deciding that everyone deserved these rights regardless of the majority opinion.
This brings us to another argument which is that many people accept rights for minorities, women, interracial etc., but are still against gay rights because people think this is some sort of "choice". Jon Stewart made a great comment to Huckabee on this issue - "when did you decide to NOT be gay?". No one decides this and in fact religion has been shown to be way more of a CHOICE and look at the protection, special treatment and outright bend-over-backwards treatment they get!
There is so much scientific data on homosexuality in animals and differences physiologically, anatomically, and genetically between heterosexuals and homosexuals, as well as several studies showing homosexuality in males may be related to highly fertile mothers or that have shown how individuals related to homosexuals have better reproductive success.
Final note - there is a reason why majority rules is not always the final answer - mobs do stupid things and we as a society have already realized this and established specific protections (constitution and bill of rights come to mind); we just seem to forget this each time something new comes up and babble on about tradition, always this way or the bible says so - and all of these arguments have been shown many times throughout history to be bad premises. So ask yourself if you have made these same arguments in your head and why? What would you rally say to someone lose to you who was gay and asked you why you don't let them have the same rights? How would you justify it to this person you care so much about and consider a friend or loved one? (assuming at least that you are not among the ignorant homophobic hate group - for those of you the discussion would be very different).
Ok one more side note, I read a blog of someone (can't remember where) who whenever anyone said this is my husband or wife etc. they would use boyfriend or girlfriend or partner when referring to the other person's partner and when corrected about them being a wife/husband they would respond "my religion/faith doesn't recognize your marriage" which I think may be extreme but I LIKE IT and plan on using that some day for sure! How would that make you feel if other people questioned your commitment and love for your partner as well as its validity?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Review of Expelled
Roger Ebert (non-scientist) has an excellent review here of Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie that provides a un-biased review. I just pasted a little from the beginning which i think makes a great point:
It just gets better! I especially like "The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics"
and then of course there is "This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people - like the Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, for example), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion." (italics from another section of the review)
Additionally - for anyone interested in sharing with others, there is a subtitle program that you can load on to your computer that goes with the movie and explains the quote mining, misinterpretations, fabrications and outright lies in the movie with actual data and true facts including the real story behind every one of the so-called scientists that lose their jobs (which they don't and what does happen is not because of what/why they claim in the movie) or whatever (programs are located here). I highly recommend it for anyone actually watching this movie.
"Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design.
Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B).
Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A)."
It just gets better! I especially like "The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics"
and then of course there is "This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people - like the Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, for example), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion." (italics from another section of the review)
Additionally - for anyone interested in sharing with others, there is a subtitle program that you can load on to your computer that goes with the movie and explains the quote mining, misinterpretations, fabrications and outright lies in the movie with actual data and true facts including the real story behind every one of the so-called scientists that lose their jobs (which they don't and what does happen is not because of what/why they claim in the movie) or whatever (programs are located here). I highly recommend it for anyone actually watching this movie.
Eharmony update
So Eharmony founder Dr. Warren is still getting flack for the gay dating issue, but this time from conservative christians like this woman:
She obviously doesn't realize the courts basically ordered him to and that the site will be different website location separate from eharmony, nor does she know the difference between random hook up sites (which LOTS of heterosexuals use as well) and authentic dating sites for long term commitment seeking people..."gay people are evil".... I bet she doesn't know or has met one gay person....ever. Ignorance - gotta love it!From: Jan
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:34 PM
To: ncwarren@eharmony.com [Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder, eHarmony.com]
Subject: unbelievableDear Mr. Warren:
I was absolutely shocked that you would cave into the homosexual agenda, by offering date-matching for homosexuals on your “Christian” dating website. They have their own dating websites which I understand to be extremely X-rated.
I have several single and widowed friends who use your website. I will be sending an e-mail to them about your caving into EVIL and that they should not use your website — ever again.
Extremely disappointed,
Jan
Crystal Lake, IL
Prop 8 the musical
Funny clip.
The end is a little wrong though - many people don't actually vote in their own best $$ interests but it's worth watching.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
The end is a little wrong though - many people don't actually vote in their own best $$ interests but it's worth watching.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
A litle quiz for you
Found this over at Stranger Fruit and thought you might enjoy.
What did you score?
"According to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute "Americans fail a basic test on their history and institutions" with an average score of 49% (college educators apparently score 55%, and office-holders 44%)."
I scored 28 out of 33 correctly — 84.85 % but feel like I failed - John M. Lynch at Stranger Fruit scored one better and attributed his score to not being a product of the American school system so I don't have any excuses; guess I'm just crappy at US gov quizzes HAA.What did you score?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Eharmony forced to accept same-sex couples searches
I just had top share - a lawsuit was filed against Eharmony because they don't allow same sex couples in the system - they aren't very friendly to atheists either , even some of my friends have said that answering not interested in the "religious community" question can get you declined. So, it is sort of a win against the completely religious based background from the founder to discriminate (although he says it is because he doesn't know anything about gay and lesbian relations ships - I guess if your gay and like to take risks, love cats, the outdoors, romantic walks, cooking, hate dishonesty etc.... the computer program would need to adjust for you sexuality to find compatible personalities, which I think is a load of it).
But they still won't put it on the actual Eharmony site - they are gonna make a new one. Nice of them.
But they still won't put it on the actual Eharmony site - they are gonna make a new one. Nice of them.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Parasites are great
I found these over at Greg Laden's Blog and had to share:
horse hair worm!!!!
Snails, Birds and Worms - gotta love m
horse hair worm!!!!
Snails, Birds and Worms - gotta love m
Friday, November 14, 2008
Catholic Preists Declares voting for O'bama a mortal sin
This is pathetic and I hope that the church admonishes him publicly. A Catholic priest in South Carolina has decided that the democratic act of casting a vote is, in some cases, a mortal sin!
Voting for a pro-abortion politician should be a basis for denying such people communion is pathetic. Mortal sin???voting is up there with actual beheading of another human being for example - come on people - at least someone in my family should comment on this!!! I will post if I hear anything from the church on this officially.
UPDATE 11/18: apparently he has now said church teaching doesn't allow him to refuse holy communion to anyone based on political choices, but that he'll continue to deliver the church's strong teaching on the "intrinsic and grave evil of abortion" as a hidden form of murder.
source
Voting for a pro-abortion politician should be a basis for denying such people communion is pathetic. Mortal sin???voting is up there with actual beheading of another human being for example - come on people - at least someone in my family should comment on this!!! I will post if I hear anything from the church on this officially.
UPDATE 11/18: apparently he has now said church teaching doesn't allow him to refuse holy communion to anyone based on political choices, but that he'll continue to deliver the church's strong teaching on the "intrinsic and grave evil of abortion" as a hidden form of murder.
source
Bird Mourning?
I originally read this over at Living the Scientific Life by GrrlScientist but it is a very good commentary on some amazing pictures of two swallows. One was fatally injured but the mate remained at its side and tried to help the fallen bird. My favorite line from GrrlScientist is "I am not one to anthropomorphize animals since I am completely unconvinced that most people are capable of experiencing deep or complex emotions" (bold mine). It makes you wonder about animal emotions and what they experience. They probably don't anticipate death but does that mean their pain is less? The picture series is definitely worth looking at it as is the blogger comments below th pics.
First snapshot of multi-planet solar system
I saw this story yesterday and thought it was really cool so I figured I would share it here. For the first time astronomers have an actual snapshot of a multi-planet solar system using infrared and it comes from the Gemini Observatory. If you click on the title of this blog - it will take you to the article and the picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
