CAPTAIN'S BLOG
I'll separate this out into different sections by topic, starting with Camille Paglia: I've read extensively into her views, and I see why you, and many on the right like her: she's very confident, self assured, and arrogant in her beliefs. And hey - whatever. That doesn't change anything. After reviewing her beliefs, I have found them wanting, but overall acceptable - and compatible with my previous assertions. Also, she is not well respected by the Left at all. I don't particularly care, but it is false to assert such a thing. As far as I can tell, the two of us are birds of a feather in that we have no true political home - but I already knew and have always known that political parties are blunt, imperfect tools for getting the future we want. But that's democracy: it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. It's just that, at it's most fundamental level, I agree with Liberalism over Conservatism: Change is dangerous (a catch-all guide for Conservatism) but good (the catch-all counter for Liberalism. I could never vote for, or support, anyone whose ideology is supplied by fear of change, religion, or their personal feelings towards some issue. This is a big problem for feminists these days - the Social Justice Warriors as they are becoming known on the internet - as their ideology is very heavily influenced by both fear and personal feelings. But I'll get to that later, hopefully. In the meantime, here's my breakdown of Camille: Her views on feminism: They are great until they are awful. Her statements on date rape are in the right vein, but land on the wrong side of the line: her assertion that rape is a part of the male psyche betrays her lack of understanding of the illusion of free will, in that she fails to capture the idea that most men are not capable of such acts, even if they were given the opportunity. So while she's right that, to a great extent, we are the victim of things we cannot control, she is not right that everyone is capable of anything.
She is totally right about the unending danger of psychopaths and their ilk: these are the people women need to be ready to defend themselves against, and while her advice to carry knife is extremely dangerous, she is right to attempt some way of defending herself, and she is right not to use a gun to do that. Rapists and psychopaths can be terrible people - but they are broken in exactly the same way anyone with a tumour on their amygdala might be - it's 'tumors all the way down' as Sam Harris once said. She's mostly right to decry much of modern feminism, but she seems to be aware of Modern Feminism 1.0, as opposed to the newer revision that is slowly taking hold. Feminism 1.0 allows feminists to exclude transwomen because we aren't "woman enough" - the irony, apparently, utterly lost on them - whereas 2.0 (my own moniker) is much more inclusive and intelligent. There's a lot of bad feminists out there, but there are more good feminists than bad feminists. Much like most groups, there is a small vocal minority who is ruining it for everyone - but their ideas are unsustainable when the light of logic, biology, and other things are shone on it. Finally, Camilla's statements regarding the way women dress being in invitation to violence sounds like something I'd hear from Islam - millions of men, my old self included, love scantily clad women, and are yet perfectly able to keep my hands and voice to myself. The disconnect here is that some feminists want to be left entirely alone by men - I can't agree with that, as nonthreatening, friendly attention is quite nice. The aggressiveness that some men pursue some women, however, is what the feminists are decrying in particular, and is what people mean when they say "rape culture": it is more socially acceptable for a man to follow a woman home while hurling objectifications at her than it is for a woman to do the same. It simply happens more often. And the reason for that is commonly because they were taught, either through pure ignorance, religious ignorance, or some other kind of ignorance, that women either like such attention, or that their declinations are simply to be ignored, because they are "just a woman". I've heard this language before at Cape High and other places - religion especially has taught people that women are to be subservient to men. Hell the Bible even asserts that the rape victim must marry her rapist if she becomes pregnant. What the hell kind of logic is that? Transgender issues and surgery: She mentioned that she's glad she didn't have the opportunity for surgery when she was younger as she might have taken it up. I take issue to this assertion, as it attempts to invalidate the importance of allowing transgender youths access to the help they need to affirm their gender identity. Very, very few people are confused enough about their gender to 1. Tell anyone, 2. Tell a doctor, 3. Get medication, 4. Get surgery. That is not how transgender feelings work: often, upon discovering that there are other transgender people out there who feel just like you, the overwhelming emotion is relief: so, it's not all in my head, then? And then the slow process of both coming to terms with and deciding what to do about it begins, with everyone finding their own path as they see fit. Ultimately, the satisfaction with surgery numbers don't lie: 98% satisfaction rates with gender-affirming surgery, as opposed to 45% satisfaction rates with the general populace after receiving generic plastic surgery. And presumably, a large portion of that 2% are transwomen who would have preferred to keep their penis - not because they feel male, but because it can be more fun. Ultimately, and unsurprisingly to anyone who knows enough about gender and sexuality, having a penis or a vagina isn't what determines gender. If you're an aggressive, sexually dominant transwoman, you might want to keep your penis because that is more compatible with the kind of sex you want to have. Also, far and away most SRS is done on young adults and full adults, aged 25 and older. It sounds to me more like Camilla came to terms with the fact that she was female, and gave up on her desire to be male. I think that's a shame, but I cannot blame her, as the time she grew up in was a very dangerous time to be trans. Hopefully she has a conversation with someone who is trans at some point and clears up that while she might be glad she wasn't confused by the option of surgery (which actually isn't much of an option for transmen, to be honest: we can make a great vagina out of a penis, but making a penis out of a vagina is fucking hard. No pun intended.), there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who really would have appreciated being taken aside - or more likely, educated in Health class - and being told that, hey, some people feel like they were born as the wrong gender, and there's quite a lot we can do about that! I find it strange that she focuses on the surgery here, as the hormones are by far the most powerful aspect of transitioning to another gender - as I can confirm, they are freaking magic. I appreciate how different they make me feel - she's right to point out that our hormones help make us who we are, and influence who we are attracted to. I'm still not terribly attracted to guys, but I am no longer disgusted by them, so I've got that going for me, which is nice. Gender: She's right that both genders are different, but I'm not sure she understands that the net is cast wide: the range of masculinity and femininity overlap almost entirely. They are two slightly mismatched waveforms: If feminism is on the left and masculinity on the right, the male sine wave is only slightly to the right of the feminine sine wave, with lots of exceptions that change nothing except forcing us to keep our nets cast wide. Also, she appears to support the gender binary: I'm afraid that is simply a false dichotomy. Gender is a spectrum. If for no other reason than by the same logic that ADHD, Autism, and other personality disorders are just rough boxes we build around certain behaviours - there is no reason to suspect that nature perfectly genders everyone and everything. It is the same way for attraction: Kinsey's Scale is right on the money, and a similar scale exists for gender. Sexuality can be broken down ever further: We already say that gender is who you go to bed as, and sexuality is who you go to bed with - but one can further subdivide that down into "romantic attraction" and "sexual attraction" - in that it is also possible to be attracted sexually, perhaps one might also say lustfully, to one gender on the spectrum, while being simultaneously attracted to another gender romantically. She says that this is not supported by biology - but she is totally wrong. This is all biology, and is completely compatible with our current understanding of human sexual and gender identity. Bill Clinton: I like Bill well enough. I don't care that he got a blowjob while in the White House, and I think the manufactured outrage over it was the real waste of time - the media's desire to focus on it for ratings was one of the first nails in the coffin of true reporting, and it was utterly irrelevant to the situation at hand. If he did use his power to force her to stay quiet, which we don't know, that would be bad - but nowhere near as bad as the things that Cosby has done. Comparing the two is absurd, and I think she is doing it to attract attention to herself - something she is wont to do. Hillary Clinton: I don't like Hillary. I think her appraisal is mostly correct - I want to see Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the same ticket. Date Rape: She's overcomplicating this. Women have every right to expect not to be raped on a date. Just because you invite someone into your place does not mean you consent to have sex with that person. It is the man's responsibility to ensure he is welcome and has her permission to make a move. This can be done either through words or body language. However - and here's where the feminist point comes in - upon rejection, many men get angry. This is often because they think they are owed something by a woman who they have attempted to woo - and that expectation comes from religion and has been adopted by many people in society. I know this happens because I have done it - and I know my reasons why was because I took her out on a date, I paid, I drove her around, I was my expectation of a great catch - but she didn't like me. Fortunately, I just got pissed off and left - but some people have been trained, either by their parents or the culture around them (informed by religion as behaviour is), that women's negative responses are, in fact, an affirmation of their true desires - and you should go ahead and ignore their complaints. Camilla does not seem to understand this at all. I'm sure she's strong and boisterous enough to firmly deny anyone who might try to get with her against her will, but not every woman is. We are again the victim of our biology and of the illusion of free will - some women are literally unable, because of their upbringing and personality, to say no to such a person in a way that the would-be rapist would find convincing. Add on to this that many women, especially in religious and conservative circles, are told to just let the rapist do as they will - give them what they want and they will let you live. Don't struggle, fight, or protest - that might make them angry, and then they will either kill you or hurt you. I remember hearing this at a religious camp I attended between two girls who were there and were worried about a guy who was getting aggressive with the girls. This is unconscionably awful advice, and is the sort of thing that is a part of the rape culture that feminists often decry, along with rapists who are never prosecuted to rapists who are prosecuted but receive a light sentence because the judge doesn't want to "ruin the lives" of some asshole who "made an honest mistake" that ended with the permanent traumatisation of an innocent party. Climate: The evidence is in, and the science is sound. It is physically impossible that humans are not affecting the environment, since our CO2 emissions are double what preceded several mass warming events that lead to mass extinctions. CO2 warms the earth: case closed. Even if the data didn't support this assertion - and it does, not just on Earth but on other planets as well - it must be true because the extra heat simply must go somewhere - conservation of energy requires that increased CO2 emissions will increase the temperature of the body that CO2 is on. So my overall feelings on Camilla are that she is a bombastic, loud mouthed left-of-central liberal with unfortunately liberal views on religion - but that just illustrates another aspect of the Left's tendency to 'respect all opinions' that I find frustrating. Some opinions are not worthy of respect - religion is merely a grouping of opinions, many of which happen to be awful. Some of them are ok I guess, but they are surrounded by so many bad ideas, that it is like sending someone into a minefield armed only with a stick - their own senses the only guide for what is right and wrong. Even the maxim "do unto others as they would do unto you" isn't quite right - not only does it leave people like Jeffrey Dahmer a little too much room to explain away his actions, but it also leaves open the 'eye for an eye' mentality that is often mistaken for justice. We should be encouraging the wellbeing of all conscious creatures to the degree that they are conscious as best we given the knowledge and resources we have at hand. And there you go: there's your better religion. How do we encourage the wellbeing of all conscious creatures? By studying what ideas make sense and work the best, and doing those things. Checking our results and progress, and changing course if we turn out to be veering off course. Only science has the principles inherent in it to do this. Religion is all about how you feel. I don't want to know how people feel - I want to know how they think. I don't care what people believe, but I do care how people believe it. Now then, I'll move on to your individual comments, trying to sum up as best as I can. … "Well, that is what the reformation was all about...an update. The jews had one too...only islam has not updated itself. That is the problem. " Sure - but Christians still do bad things to innocent people, and so do Jews. Islam can't do the same thing because the Quran explicitly says that it is the perfect, immutable word of god. They might find some way to explain it away, but it is much easier to simply abandon religion altogether. Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have worked with other people of the Islamic faith on a new book that explicitly describes how to move Islam from something really quite dangerous to something that is hopefully relatively benign. Hopefully, they will all survive the attempt. But Christianity and Judaism are causing some unnecessary suffering for someone right now: either they are worried about the will of their god, or they find themselves unable to be straight or their birth gender, or are susceptible to wishful thinking and making sense of the suffering people go through on false pretenses. … "That's what faith is by definition...belief without evidence." And that is why it is so dangerous. You can't dissuade someone from performing some action if they do not respond to evidence to the contrary. If you tell me not to do something,I will ask you why, and if your explanation makes sense, I won't do that thing. That does not work when people allow themselves to believe things without evidence. … "It is a powerful force and like all ideas can be used for good or evil." Sure - but the evil it does is significant, and there are better ways to think where we get to keep all the good and leave behind all the evil. … "Yes, but don't forget that the foundation of law in western civilization is based on the ten commandments." Well, only in the sense that those ten commandments were based off the laws of the land that came before them. They are around the middle as far as lists of things not to do to one another goes. But those principles were around long before the ten commandments were written about, especially since our law foundation is Greek, Roman, and Latin. Also, the framers of the (second) constitution were almost unanimously agnostics and deists - and had atheism not been a virtual death warrant back them, many of them would likely have been atheists. Certainly, Thomas Jefferson. It is irrelevant where they rules come from though, so long as these rules make sense - and the ten commandments are spotty at best. It makes sense not to kill one another - something that was certainly came before the 10 commandments. It makes less sense to care about infidelity - that's more a personal moral issue than it is relevant to the state. It makes even less sense to care about idolatry at the state level - again, that's a personal issue. So we take the good - don't kill people - and leave the bad - cheating on your spouse is punishable by death. We are already using our own internal sense of morality to determine what we think is right and wrong - the bibles of the world just happen to be an especially poor collection of ideas. There are some good ideas, but they are all over the place in terms of what makes a moral action and what makes an immoral action. The issue is that when some people feel uncomfortable about something, they will use their belief system to support that feeling, and if the Bible said he who wears the clothing of a woman is an abomination, then an abomination they are. Indeed, they can tell that they are an abomination, because of the strength of their emotion. They don't know that free will is an illusion, and the natural emotion that arises when looking at someone different than you is an emotion that is built upon millions of years of evolutionary distrust of things that are different. But this is the future - we know that lots of people are different, and that their differences shouldn't matter to us. Not everyone gets that memo though. … " Since at the beginning of civilization there was no democratic structure for distributing power" There have been a handful of democratic 'enough' structures for distributing power throughout history. It was often not as robust as it is today, but it did exist - and democracies' birth did not come from religion, either. … "you had a chief or whatever who claimed his right to govern came from from "god" and the rules came from him. " How is that any different from people who read a book by 'god' and tell me, based on the contents of that book, that I shouldn't be able to get married, or get surgery, or hormones? What if that person, instead of reading a bunch of nonsense, read about gender and transgender people? Then he would have an understanding, and might even be friendly. … "And you always take one example of a small group and broad brush every conservative and republican as though they all have the same viewpoint. That is just wrong and you should know better. You end up sounding just like the very thing you condemn. " I have no idea what you are talking about - I acknowledge the rare people in the Conservative party who aren't utter jackasses. But the monolithic structure of their ideas are simply inferior and old fashioned, and they literally have less reliable news sources. Studies show this over and over. I'm not saying that liberals aren't biased, and that biased liberal news doesn't exist, but I am saying, based on the large number of conservative articles I have read and continue to read, including the ones sent by you, that conservative news is more inflammatory, less likely to retract incorrect statements, more likely to repeat allegations that have been proven false, and so on. The fact that you do not believe that, despite all the evidence, is baffling. That any news that contradicts the right's point of view is liberal propaganda is precisely what they want you to think. There are some good Conservatives - and you are just barely one of them - but none of them are in positions of power. The people in power are your Bush family, Mike Huckabee, John Boehner, Lindsay Graham, and other conservo-religious jackasses. … "I agree but she is talking about respecting the religion itself and not certain people's interpretation of it." There is nothing of a religion except it's interpretation. There is no concrete answer. There is no singular, correct interpretation. It is merely however people feel about something. … "It is the successive writings (called the Hadith, etc.) which contain other people's interpretations of certain passages in it and stories and sayings that Mohammed apparently said and did." They are still considered the word of god and are to be followed to the letter. … "how to live a good life in this world and what is the nature of reality." That is their nefariousness - they claim to be able to do such things, but are capable of answering neither. The only way to know how to life a good life is to think rationally about it. The only way to determine the nature of reality is to think rationally about it. … "You should not dismiss nor deride other people's beliefs. They neither pick your pocket nor break your arm. " Oh, but they do break my arm. They do things like stop stem cell research, shoot abortion doctors, and kill or hurt gay and trans people. Their beliefs that do not affect others are fine - but religion, especially Christianity, contains very few such beliefs. … "The issue is whether one has the right to "force" their beliefs on others. If someone wants to wear a bag on their head, that is their right. But, they can't get a driver's license without having their picture taken with the bag on and their husband does not have the right to force them to wear it if they don't want to." Right, and that's exactly what I'm saying: women can wear what they want, but if they are forced to wear a burka because if they don't they will be raped, disfigured, or murdered if they don't because their culture says that is the punishment for women who don't wear a burka, what is to be done then? Obviously, it cannot be allowed. And if we study the brains of the women involved, we find high stress levels and low happiness. Their wellbeing is being negatively affected by this custom. Since that is the only thing that it makes sense to value, and the values of the people enforcing this tradition have no rationalisation, then anyone caught harming or harassing a woman who refuses to wear a burka should be punished like it was any other crime. … "What is "good" is up to interpretation. " Absolutely. And whatever is interpreted is best interpreted logically, and with our emotions to the side. … "Bad ideas ultimately die away as long as they are held up to the light of day and not forcibly buried. " That's right - which is why I continue to speak out against religion. I would never advocate for religion to be made illegal - but it withering in the light of day. … "No, there is also a degree of condescension that makes it "snark". " I think snark is the cynicism of our time. It is a great thing, and Jon Stewart did a great thing by bringing it to the masses. … "She has studied a lot more history than you have. " It does not seem like it - I know quite a lot about history. Why is it that whenever someone tells me, especially from the right, to check my history, it turns out I was right the whole time? She knows a lot about art history. I know a lot about history as it pertains to my interests, which is politics, religion, and rational thought. … "It's her opinion...and she is a leftie...get it right. " I don't see what this has to do with my comments. I was explaining that her appraisal of Sam Harris and especially Christopher Hitchens was utterly false, and seems to illustrate that she has neither read any of their stuff or engaged with their ideas in any way. I also don't really care if she's a leftie - it changes utterly nothing. I care about her beliefs and how she got them - and some of them are wrong because she appears to have either been misled, or hasn't read any of their stuff. And all of my points stand - her appraisal of Hitchens was wrong in all the same ways the Conservatives appraisal of his is wrong. … "She wrote groundbreaking works on women and their sexuality that are still held up as scholarly works on the subject and are studied in many universities "social" courses. " That is not true - much of her works on sexuality, gender, and especially feminism have been panned. … "She also reads (and writes for) Salon, The New Yorker, Huffington Post, etc. She just doesn't read one side. Something maybe you should do once in a while. " Why do you always say that? I do, and I always have. It is embarrassing how wrong much of it is - but I read it anyways, just in case one day someone figures it out. … "And the lefties that broad brush all conservatives as religious anti-science nuts who hate clean air and water? " Well... that's a pretty fair appraisal of the right, yeah. That's not to say that all conservatives are anti-science religious nuts, but yeah, the core demographic is as such. I know the right doesn't hate clean air and water, but their policies lead to unhealthy air and water. I know not all conservatives hate science, but in a world of climate-change denying, homosxuality and transgender identity denying, it is easy to say that "most" of them are. Certainly, again, most of the people in power are like that. Maybe if you ran for Governor, things would be different. … "That's right...and many of them grow up to be conservatives. " That does not appear to be the case at all: "Over the past decades,[when?] the political outlook of Americans has become more progressive, with those below the age of thirty being considerably more liberal than the overall population. According to recent polls, 56% of those age 18 to 29 favor gay marriage, 68% state environmental protection to be as important as job creation, 52% "think immigrants 'strengthen the country with their hard work and talents,'" 62% favor a "tax financed, government-administrated universal health care" program and 74% "say 'people's will' should have more influence on U.S. laws than the Bible, compared to 37%, 49%, 38%, 47% and 58% among the general population." [Enterprisers are] Predominantly white (91%), male (76%) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide). Nearly half (46%) have a college degree, and 77% are married. Nearly a quarter (23%) are themselves military veterans. Only 10% are under age 30. – Pew Research Center, 2005”“[Social Conservatives are] Predominantly white (91%), female (58%) and the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older); nearly half live in the South. Most (53%) attend church weekly; 43% are white evangelical Protestants (double the national average of 21%). – Pew Research Center, 2005”“[Pro-Government Conservatives are] Predominately female (62%) and relatively young; highest percentage of minority members of any Republican-leaning group (10% black, 12% Hispanic). Most (59%) have no more than a high school diploma. Poorer than other Republican groups; nearly half (49%) have household incomes of less than $30,000 (about on par with Disadvantaged Democrats). Nearly half (47%) are parents of children living at home; 42% live in the South. – Pew Research Center, 2005”“Older women and blacks make up a sizeable proportion of [Conservative Democrats] (27% and 30%, respectively). Somewhat less educated and poorer than the nation overall. Allegiance to the Democratic Party is quite strong (51% describe themselves as "strong" Democrats) but fully 85% describe themselves as either conservative or moderate ideologically. – Pew Research Center, 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States … "Oh really? the whole thing was staged?" Uhh, yeah. I know you didn't hear about that because you don't trust the left, and get your news from heavily biased sources. Sources we know are biased, as we have done studies on how biased they are. I feel compelled to say for the millionth time that this doesn't mean the left isn't biased, but the science shows that right are more biased than the left. Here's some articles on the subject you won't trust because they aren't on Conservative websites: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-abortion-debate-reignited-by-secret-videos-1.3175945 http://www.democracynow.org/2015/7/31/exposed_the_faces_and_fake_names http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/03/planned_parenthood_president_videos_doctored_by_fake_group_to_make_it_look_like_we_were_doing_something_wrong.html This is especially stupid of the Right because Planned Parenthood does very few abortions - 2% of their work involves abortions. Of course, even if it was more than that, that would be perfectly fine, because there is no logical reason to prevent a woman from having an abortion if it's early enough. And yes, we can, scientifically, determine when it is too late, and no, it doesn't have anything to do with souls. … "If they were staged and the left had evidence of it it would be the biggest story ever." Well, welcome to now: because the left has already moved on, and is exasperated by the foolishness of these videos. They are hoaxes, through and through. I mean, what benefit would there be to selling "baby body parts"? Are you fucking serious? This is the stuff that worries me. Conservatives might be right about some things, but they are so unbelievably unwilling to change their mind on this that it blows my fucking mind. You really will believe whatever they tell you to believe. … "They're real alright...and I personally find it horrific. " And here's the kicker: the only tissue that does get passed on is for research or stem cells. Those cells will save the lives of many other babies out there. It's not like people are sneaking arms out or something. … "There you go again. "Only the right"..c'mon...you do it every time you have a weak argument. " And you point that out whenever you have a weak argument. Read it again, I did include the nauseatingly obvious caveat: … "Surprising no one - the Right cares far more about inflammatory-ness than they do about fact checking - everyone runs a story before fact checking it these days, but only the Right sticks with their first thought against all evidence, and appears to increase in fervor with the invalidity of the claims being made. The capacity to make a big deal out of nothing is, I think, the most dangerous aspect of the Right's political sphere: it distracts us from the real questions we need to be struggling with, instead of arguing over silly bullshit." But the evidence is right in front of you: lies about healthcare (death panels!), lies about planned parenthood. … "At least there are a lot of possible candidates and not just one who is to be coronated. What does that say about the state of the Democrat party? " Well, that's certainly not what the Democratic party feels - that must be your biased sources lying to you again. Many of us want Bernie Sanders, but he needs to get the support just like Hillary does, but he's a farther-left candidate and thus will alienate more of the center-left or center-right who might be swayed by his populist attitude. Hillary makes sense, and is a strong, imperfect candidate just like all the others with pretty good ideas about some things, and some ideas that she obviously has to toe the line on until she gets elected, similar to what Obama is doing with the last few months of his presidency - now is the time to build political capital, not spend it. She's very calculating and obviously is a career politician, so if I had my way it'd be Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders. … "Talk about stifling ideas that don't agree with the party line." Well, no - the candidate doesn't really do that as much as the whole party philosophy does that. And the whole party philosophy is 'get a democrat elected' right now. Hilary is the most obvious choice, so I'm not surprised she was the first choice. But things will still shake out, and again, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are all about stepping over the party line. Doing so in the Conservative party is a death warrant - Boehner is powerless to put what legislation forth that he would really want, because the party prevents him from doing so, hence the shutdowns of yesteryear. … "So, we stifle the other side of the argument, eh? " Oh no, I never said that - one can only determine if an idea is without merit after analysing its merit - and if found guilty of being meritless, can be safely ignored until some evidence comes along to change that view. Climate change denialism has zero evidence in support of it's arguments, its arguments are incompatible with our understanding of physics, proponents are often found to be being paid by oil companies and Conservative groups (an irony that is, of course, not appreciated by the right, as they trumpet 'follow the money'), and proponents have consistently been found to have been manipulating their data. I'm waiting on a reasonable argument for why humans are not impacting global warming, and why we should be nonchalant about that change. I strive to never paint people with a broad brush. Any attempts at doing so are simply a way to simplify, or smooth over views that are irrelevant. Not all Conservatives are against gay marriage, but all of the ones that matter are. Not all Conservative news sources are biased, but all of the ones that matter are. Not all Conservative views are wrong or bad for society, but all of the ones that matter are.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorChristina Hitchens is a trans female writer living in BC, Canada. She loves computers, animals, and a good argument. Archives
March 2022
Categories
All
|