aboutmaleprivilege:
Male privilege is when your brother is assigned the exact same amount of household chores as you, yet he’s the one who gets away with not doing them.
Unpopular opinion. Trigger warning: sexism.
Why even post this? Moderator - moderate.
The only thing this does is cheapen and dilute the message and purpose of this blog.
Male privilege does not extend to everything that happens to have two gender options, male privilege extends to everything where gender is a conscious or unconscious primary deciding factor.
Do/Did your parent/guardian/s have a case of overwhelming internalised misogyny?
This is not male privilege, it is parenting and siblings. I do not think that because my sister got far fewer groundings than me I was a victim of misandry. No maybe I was, can I submit that?
(Source: all-about-male-privilege)
3:58 pm • 26 July 2012 • 51 notes
Male Privilege #30
Seriously? Another gender came from your fucking rib? No, they came from two X chromosomes paired in your mom, while you came from an X chromosome and a Y chromosome paired. Sperm or egg cells have one set of chromosomes each. Every other cell, which is called a somatic cell, has 2 sets. That’s why when a sperm and egg meet they each give you half the genes from each parent.
Your life came from a scientifically proven partnership between both sexes. There was no inequality written in your genes. If one of your parents has a flaw in a gene, there is a possibility that the same gene from the other parent is a working copy, so you won’t suffer. Dominant and recessive genes aren’t decided by gender. Every cell in your body is proof of equality and partnership between men and women being the only thing that was ever normal. Assuming you have the right to be ignorant of this is a privilege. The privilege of stupidity.
(Source: aboutmaleprivilege)
4:47 pm • 9 July 2012 • 6 notes
“The Atheist Challenge”
1. If there is NO God, then there is no Measurement or Standard for morality? Then What will define morality?
The basis of my morality stems from my experience of empathy. I know how it feels for me to be hurt or healed physically and emotionally, and by communicating with other people I know they to have experience similar things.
I know that the experience is different for different people. It also seems people co-exist with the least negative experience when they take each-others experience in to account. It is because of thais that I believe, to borrow a phrase, morality is about ‘maximising well-being’.
It is not the same for everyone and there may be equivalent ways to do so, but via the expanding disciplines of psychology and neuroscience, there may be some truths to be learnt.
Simply put: philosophical naturalism.
2. If there is NO God, then there is NO meaning or purpose to Life. So without a God, does life have purpose or meaning? Without God, does the Atheist have purpose?
With a time limit of roughly 85 good years in my country, life is an emergency. Some people do not get that many purely because of their country of birth. Do they want more life? Of course. Should more life for me come at a cost of less life for other people? No.
I justify this by reversing the situation and considering if I would be okay with, for example, my family dying because someone in another country used the majority of our natural resources? Would I be alright with my children being unable to eat a balanced diet because my consumption patterns had made that impossible?
As an atheist I feel my purpose is to live in such a way that I help people not as lucky as myself, and in a way that does not negatively impact future generations.
3. Are you an advocate of New Atheism and Darwinism? If so, then the most extreme and logical form of Darwinism is Eugenics. Would you support this? Why or Why Not?
I make no distinction between “new” or old atheism because there is none, other than public exposure. I advocate atheism because it directly correlates with all existing evidence regarding the existence of deities and the supernatural.
If by “Darwinism” you mean the ‘evolving’ science of evolution, then yes, obviously, for the same reason as atheism - it most accurately represents what we see in nature.
In some cases yes, in some cases no. Selection for genetic composition occurs everywhere. If you mean the killing or the removal from society of people deemed genetically unfit, no of course not. Because of this subjects vast complexity and possible applications, it requires detailed discussion on a case by case basis.
4. If we are ancesoters/descendants of Apes, then why are there no transitional fossils or species to support this theory?
There are plenty, this is an argument from ignorance, shut up and use wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
5. Do you believe in Human Nature? It is Human Nature to believe in God, if so, why do you go against human nature and not believe in God?
What? Fuck I wish I read all these questions before starting, I’ve written too much not to finish now.
I have no idea how you define “Human Nature”, but the question contains a totally erroneous presupposition of supernatural belief being a part of this “Human Nature”.
A psychological predisposition to do or believe anything is proof of nothing, except the ability to hold that belief. The process of believing something in your head at no point means it is real outside of your skull.
So, in no sense is it human nature, and even if it was, it wouldn’t be, unless my nature is not human. (Maybe I am the missing link???)
6. Can ‘Something come from Nothing’? Doesn’t that violate The First Law of Thermodynamics?
This is the First Cause argument.
The most widely supported explanation I am aware of is the Zero-energy universe hypothesis. I don’t know much about astrophysics, so I don’t trust myself to give an accurate answer.
But the fact astrophysics is not set in stone doesn’t concern me, it excites me. Scientists love not knowing. It is preferable to me than being absolutely certain about something for bad reasons.
7. It seems that a society of Atheist are immoral and self-destructing. Why would anyone want a Godless Society, just look at our examples: North Korea, Maoist China, Stalin, & Pot Pol?
It doesn’t seem that way, just look at our examples: countries with less belief in a spirit, God, or life force, have significantly lower rates of murder, theft etc.
Those “Godless Societies” all distinctly resemble religion and religious organisation - the fervent worship and admiration of a central figure imbued with superior characteristics.
8. If you were to die, and you were before God. And he was getting ready to pass judgement on you, What would be your reaction or thoughts? What plea would you give him so he does not judge you harshly?
I was only operating with facilities he gave me in his divine plan, if he knew everything he would know the outcome of my religious persuasions.
9. What would convince you atheism is wrong? And that Christianity is Right?
Evidence. What would convince you that Christianity is wrong and Islam is right?
10. Why are you an Atheist? Why do you NOT believe in God? Why do you reject God? (You can be as detailed as you want.)
A lack of evidence. Why do you reject Shangdi ?
(Source: bittersweetend.wordpress.com)
12:56 pm • 9 July 2012 • 10 notes
“
The LHC Confirms Biblical Creation
Given the alleged secular claims about the LHC, it is somewhat ironic that the very existence of such a machine is a confirmation of biblical creation. God has promised in Genesis 8:22 to uphold the universe in a consistent way such that the basic cycles of nature are uniform. So, we have God’s Word that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. Such consistency is what makes science possible; God upholds the universe in a consistent way. Without such a promise, experiments like the LHC (or any other scientific experiment) would be completely useless.
But in a big bang, evolutionary universe, there is no guarantee that nature will have such uniformity. The fact that it has in the past is irrelevant to the future, unless we already assumed uniformity between the future and the past. All scientists must presuppose that nature is orderly in order for scientific testing to be meaningful. For instance, measuring the speed of a ball rolling down an inclined plane would be pointless if the force of gravity were constantly changing in an unpredictable way.
Whatever scientists discover about the universe from the LHC, it will show that the universe is upheld by God in a consistent way. This will therefore confirm that the Bible is true.
”
— Answers In Genesis
11:43 am • 6 July 2012 • 30 notes
