The message it seems to be saying is "Don't take precautions with technology, and use strawman logical fallacies against anybody who tells you otherwise" and the intended audience only thinks with their emotions.

Thanks internet.

So, I'm on Tumblr.

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nekkofox to be exact.

I don't do much there, really. I post furry porn and artwork, accompany each post with a lame pun, and go about my day. It seems to have caught a little attention, because I'm rapidly approaching 1,250 followers now, and I've only been on it for about a month or so.

On top of that, I follow a few posters on tumblr. 30 or 40 people, most of which don't seem to post much, at all, or haven't in ages, but that's irrelevant. Some of the followers I watch post regular content and it's nice.

And then I see the snowflakes. And I read their posts. And I grind my teeth, cinch my eyes shut, and regulate my breathing.

Angsty, whiny teens proliferate on tumblr, pining for attention and gaining attention from mountains and mountains of like-minded pissants. And they each have to do one of several things;

Prove how much of an individual they are, like this dumb-ass here (seriously, triggers, Neil DeGrasse Tyson?)




Prove that they are more oppressed than you (like it's a fucking pissing contest of misery)



Or scream how you need to learn their pronouns (xim xe xer, and let's not forget things like Planet-self and Princess-self)





Personally, I've found that this all comes off as needlessly contrived. With that irritant is a massive influx of 'sexuals'. Omnisexual, demisexual, parasexual, digisexual, etc. In regards to that topic, I want to smash my head against the desk. Do you fuck people of the same gender? Homosexual preferences. Fuck people of a different gender? Heterosexual. Like to fuck them both? Bisexual. Don't want to fuck? Asexual. And the gradient scale fills all the gaps in between (Gay, but like women. Bi, prefer boys. Lesbian, don't like sex). But now we have people adding more and more to a list of social norms that, frankly, doesn't need to be expanded upon. Do you not have sex unless you get to know someone really well? That's called being "picky about who you bang". You don't really need to add another category to the list. Our culture is already a convoluted mess as it is, it seems redundant to add an EXTRA explanation to something that doesn't need attention. And what's more, it's worn like a goddamned badge of honor. I thought that a person's sexuality was somewhat private, but instead of it taking some time to learn what sexual preferences your new chum has, everyone wants to splatter the information on their blog along with what seems to be a random assortment of nonsense (it's a code, really: "I want more attention than I'm worth") .



And then comes the fishing for compliments (and it's not even gender significant, I've seen boys and girls, of every sexual persuasion, putting on pouty faces and saying they are ugly). These people con other users into mooning over them and expecting glorious, exalted praise if they utter any derisive comment about themselves, no matter how painfully self-deprecating.



I don't have enough kerosene and matches to purge this kind of blight.

And it gets so, so much worse. If you dare have a dissenting opinion or a contrary view on the matter, no matter how unbiased, scientific, logical or common-sense it is, well then, fuck you're face! At least that has, and continues to be, the continued mentality on tumblr. You should see the screaming hate that comes crashing down on anyone who says that 'men can be raped and it's horrible'. The level of bile and venom spewed if you are dismissive of someone saying 'cultural appropriation is wrong!' while you eat a taco and have the gross misfortune of being white.

And then comes 'the privilege'. White? Male? American? Maybe Christian too? BOOM! YOU HAVE ALL THE PRIVILEGE AND YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER! I kid you not, this is a thing. Apparently if you're white and have dangly bits, then you're already not allowed to say 'How you're treating me is unfair. In fact, it's cruel and despicable and I deserve to be treated with respect like any other human being." or any variation thereof, because privilege that's why.

But it's taken one step further. THIN PRIVILEGE!



They also have tall privilege, black privilege, female privilege, male privilege, dwarf privilege (not kidding), it runs the gamut.

From there, they even create unnecessary strife where there needn't be any. Game culture doesn't have enough girls? Well, obviously it's the patriarchy. No genderqueer entities in warhammer? Better make a list of demands about what you expect to see in this hyper-militant testosterone-fueled world. Not enough minorities represented in the McDonald's commercial? Put in some minorities or we'll boycott you! Too many minorities represented in the McDonald's commercial? You're stereotyping minroties so we're going to boycott you! So on and so forth.

Hell, just being yourself is apparently oppressive to people, even if you're someone who is "oppressed"



And then we have the whole 'imaginary friend' thing that's gotten out of control. Head-mates. It's the hip new term for having an imaginary friend that's not only ridiculous and stupid, but made more so by the demand that it be considered socially acceptable to walk around and act this way.



I like how fictitious entities are in there, as well as Leonardo DiCaprio, but I've seen much worse. People have inanimate entities (Buddha statues, planets, stars, galaxies, old shirts or blankets). All I can do is try and keep my jaw from dropping as I read the potentially lethal amounts of stupid radiating from a single website.

Now, I'm a 4chan user. /b/ of all things. I've seen some shit. LOTS of shit. I've seen threads that are centered around gore, violence, death, destruction, bestiality, rape, murder, arson, theft. I've seen discussions range from cultured dialogue to shit-slinging contests. I've read threads that covered topics ranging from child prostitution in foreign countries to pushing partners down stairs to abort pregnancies to the cultural impact of marrying your waifu anime pillow to the best way to chop up and dispose of human bodies. After a while you get desensitized by page after page of irreverent horror regularly appearing on your screen. You don't mind the people playing the ping-pong match of racial-slurs. You skip past and yawn when you see someone fucking their horse. Hell, you might find a new fetish you didn't know you had and might start a fap folder, or be able to point to a picture and say "Man, I love that pic, first saw it three years ago in a rekt thread". You learn to dehumanize and laugh at the somber or unexplainably horrible. Hell, why do you think I post cub porn? It stops being a problem because your morality shifts, or you abandon it all together.



But then I turned around and saw tumblr and my eyebrows raised. Was this for real? People thinking this way? Doing this shit? It had to be ironic, that's why these people talk this way. But no, many of these morons whole-heartedly, and without reserve, believe what they post is accurate and true. As a person who can read through a thread about how Hitler did nothing wrong and laugh at holocaust jokes, it was a bit of a surprise to find how much I found their posts to be offensive. Not because it's inherently offensive by what is said, but by the complete lack of intelligence in anything they have to say. And I can tolerate a lot of bullshit.



But then I realized something. They're kids. snot-nosed, pretentious kids. Sure, some are in their 20's, but considering their maturity, I feel I'm justified in still calling them kids.

So I invite them out of their little sheltered bubble of a blog they call 'home page'. I introduce them to the monsters in /pol/. I give them a tour of /k/. I let them browse /b/.

It all starts the same way. Outrage that they can't like or dislike posts. Disgust at the content or message. And then the arguments start. They find a post that they decide they can handle, and respond to it.

But they don't realize what will happen next. Cat-calls, jeering, jabs and jibes, of course. But then someone posts an intelligent retort. They explain WHY Hitler did nothing wrong. They point out HOW the Jews are the root of the world's evil. They explain at great length what makes OP a fag, and how many dicks you can suck for bothering to respond.

And so it begins. First they come in, guns-blazing, eager to make others check their privilege... but slowly, almost imperceptibly, they notice a change. While they don't agree with some (or any) of what is being posted, they start seeing different opinions. And they come back, maybe just every now and again to scream about privilege or patriarchy or head-mates at the people on the boards, and each time they leave a little more jaded, a little more poisoned, just one more toxic thought siphoned away. And before they know it, they go back to tumblr and look around. The SJW crowd they were in seems close-minded, their arguments fallacious, their posts vacuous and their opinions boring.


Next thing they know, they are calling posters on other sites 'Fag', they start chuckling when they see Hitler eating a water-melon, they fap to cub or loli or tentacle hentai, they call fat people 'landwhale' or 'hambeast', they look at a black person in a picture with a bike and immediately caption it with "Implying that it's his bike", they start looking up nazi uniforms because they look cool... then they look in the mirror and discover that what they are now isn't who they thought they would be when they were on Tumblr.

They've become Anon, not some piss-dribbling Tumblrfag. Gender no longer matters, sexuality doesn't matter, politics don't matter, hell, even your opinions don't matter.

Because you realize that no one really gives a shit about your feelings or what you think is considered 'fair' or 'inoffensive'.

And that's just fine.

"The dome was inlaid with thousands of tiny panes of colored glass that cast sunlight onto the floor in colored shapes, as if someone had spilled a basket of jewels across the flagstones."

Lovecraft on religion

Lovecraft's works are ruled by several distinct pantheons of deities (actually aliens who are worshiped by humans as deities) who are either indifferent or actively hostile to humanity. Lovecraft's actual philosophy has been termed "cosmic indifferentism" and this is expressed in his fiction. Several of Lovecraft's stories of the Old Ones (alien beings of the Cthulhu Mythos), propose alternate mythic human origins in contrast to those found in the creation stories of existing religions, expanding on a natural world view. For instance, in Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness" it is proposed that humankind was actually created as a slave race by the Old Ones. Protagonist characters in Lovecraft are usually educated men, citing scientific and rationalist evidence to support their non-faith. Herbert West–Reanimator reflects on the atheism common within academic circles. In "The Silver Key", the character Randolph Carter loses the ability to dream and seeks solace in religion, specifically Congregationalism, but does not find it and ultimately loses faith.

Lovecraft himself adopted the stance of atheism early in his life. In 1932 he wrote in a letter to Robert E. Howard: "All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hairsplitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist."

A letter on Religion H. P. Lovecraft
In 1918 H. P Lovecraft at the age of 28 wrote the following letter to his friend Maurice W. Moe

Your wonderment “What I have against religion” reminds me of your recent Vagrant essay—which I had the honor of perusing in manuscript some three years ago. To my mind, that essay misses one point altogether. Your “agnostic” has neglected to mention the very crux of all agnosticism—namely that the Judaeo-Christian mythology is NOT TRUE. I can see that in your philosophy truth per se has so small a place that you can scarcely realize what it is that Galpin and I are insisting upon. In your mind, MAN is the center of everything, and his exact conformation to certain regulations of conduct HOW EVER EFFECTED, the only problem in the universe. Your world (if you will pardon my saying so) is contracted.All the mental vigor and erudition of the ages fail to disturb your complacent endorsement of empirical doctrines and purely pragmatic notions, because you voluntarily limit your horizon—excluding certain facts, and certain undeniable mental tendencies of mankind.

In your eyes, man is torn between only two influences: the degrading instincts of the savage, and the temperate impulses of the philanthropist. To you, men are of but two classes—lovers of self and lovers of the race. To you, men have but two types of emotion—self-gratification, to be combated; and altruism, to be fostered. But you, consciously or unconsciously, are leaving out a vast and potent tertium quid —making an omission, which cannot but interfere with the validity of your philosophical conceptions. You are forgetting a human impulse that, despite its restriction to a relatively small number of men, has all through history proved itself as real and as vital as hunger—as potent as thirst or greed. I need not say that I refer to that simplest yet most exalted attribute of our species—the acute, persistent, unquenchable craving TO KNOW. Do you realize that to many men it makes a vast and profound difference whether or not the things about them are as they appear?…

I recognize a distinction between dream life and real life, between appearances and actualities. I confess to an overpowering desire to know whether I am asleep or awake—whether the environment and laws that affect me are external and permanent, or the transitory products of my own brain. I admit that I am very much interested in the relation I bear to the things about me—the time relation, the space relation, and the causative relation. I desire to know approximately what my life is in terms of history—human, terrestrial, solar, and cosmical; what my magnitude may be in terms of extension,—terrestrial, solar, and cosmical; and above all, what may be my manner of linkage to the general system—in what way, through what agency, and to what extent, the obvious guiding forces of creation act upon me and govern my existence. And if there be any less obvious forces, I desire to know them and their relation to me as well. Foolish, do I hear you say? Undoubtedly! I had better be a consistent pragmatist: get drunk and confine myself to a happy, swinish, contented little world—the gutter—till some policeman’s No. 13 boot intrudes upon my philosophic repose. But I cannot. Why? Because some well-defined human impulse prompts me to discard the relative for the absolute. You would encourage me as far as the moral stage. You would agree with me that I had better see the world as it is than to forget my woes in the flowing bowl. But because I have a certain momentum, and am carried a step further from the merely relative, you frown upon me and declare me to be a queer, unaccountable creature, “immersed…in the VICIOUS abstractions of philosophy!”

Here, then, is the beginning of my religious or philosophical thought. I have not begun talking about morality yet, because I have not reached that point in the argument. Entity precedes morality. It is a prerequisite. What am I? What is the nature of the energy about me, and how does it affect me? So far I have seen nothing which could possibly give me the notion that cosmic force is the manifestation of a mind and will like my own infinitely magnified; a potent and purposeful consciousness which deals individually and directly with the: miserable denizens of a wretched little fly speck on the back door of a microscopic universe, and which singles this putrid excrescence out as the one spot whereto to send an only-begotten Son, whose mission is to redeem those accursed fly speck-inhabiting lice which we call human beings—bah!! Pardon the “bah!” I feel several “bahs!,” but out of courtesy I only say one. But it is all so very childish. I cannot help taking exception to a philosophy that would force this rubbish down my throat. “What have I against religion?” That is what I have against it!…

Now let us view morality —which despite your preconceived classification and identification has nothing to do with any particular form of religion.Morality is the adjustment of matter to its environment—the natural arrangement of molecules. More especially it may be considered as dealing with organic molecules. Conventionally it is the science of reconciling the animal Homo (more or less) sapiens to the forces and conditions with which he is surrounded. It is linked with religion only so far as the natural elements it deals with are deified and personified. Morality antedated the Christian religion,and has many times risen superior to coexistent religions. It has powerful support from very non-religious human impulses. Personally, I am intensely moral and intensely irreligious. My morality can be traced to two distinct sources, scientific and aesthetic. My love of truth is outraged by the flagrant disturbance of sociological relations involved in so-called wrong; whilst my aesthetic sense is outraged and disgusted with the violations of taste and harmony thereupon attendant. But to me the question presents no ground for connexion with the groveling instinct of religion. However—you may exclude me from the argument, if you will. I am unduly secluded though unavoidably so. We will deal only with materials that may presumably lie within my feeble reach. Only one more touch of ego. I am not at all passive or indifferent in my zeal for a high morality. But I cannot consider morality the essence of religion, as you seem to. In discussing religion, the whole fabric must bear examination before the uses or purposes are considered. We must investigate the cause as well as alleged effects if we are to define the relation between the two, and the reality of the former. And more, granting that the phenomenon of faith is indeed the true cause of the observed moral effects; the absolute basis of that phenomenon remains to be examined. The issue between theist sand atheists is certainly not, as you seem to think, the mere question of whether religion is useful or detrimental. In your intensely pragmatic mind, this question stands paramount—to such an extent that you presented no other subject of discussion in your very clever Vagrant article. But the “agnostic” of your essay must have been a very utilitarian agnostic (that such “utilitarian Agnostics” do exist, I will not deny. Vide any issue of The Truth-seeker! But are they typical?)! What the honest thinker wishes to know, has nothing to do with complex human conduct. He simply demands a scientific explanation of the things he sees. His only animus toward the church concerns its deliberate inculcation of demonstrable untruths in the community. This is human nature. No matter how white a lie may be—no matter how much good it may do—we are always more or less disgusted by its diffusion. The honest agnostic regards the church with respect for what it has done in the direction of virtue. He even supports it if he is magnanimous, and he certainly does nothing to impair whatever public usefulness it may possess. But in private, he would be more than a mere mortal if he were able to suppress a certain abstract resentment, or to curb the feeling of humor and so-called irreverence which inevitably arises from the contemplation of pious fraud, howsoever high-minded and benevolent.

The good effects of Christianity are neither to be denied, nor lightly esteemed, though candidly I will admit that I think them overrated. For example,the insignia of the Red Cross is practically the only religious thing about it. It is purely humanitarian and philanthropic, and has received just as much of its vitality from agnostic—or Jewish—sources, as from Christian sources…. These nominally Christian societies usurp the lion’s share of social service merely because they are on the ground first. Free and rational thought is relatively new, and rationalists find it just as practicable to support these exiting Christian charities as to organize new ones that might create a division of energy and therefore decrease the efficiency of organized charity as a whole. And by the way—was not Belgium relief work largely non-religious? I may be mistaken —but all this is aside from my main argument anyway. I am not protesting against the recognition of Christianity’s accomplishments. This has nothing to do with absolute basis of faith.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/myths-and-controversies-gmos-0

What You Need To Know About Genetically Modified Organisms

Genetically modified crops are a topic of intense debate that have sparked a lot of controversy over the years, fuelled largely through a lack of understanding and vast amounts of misinformation. Do we need GM crops? Are they dangerous? This article is going to give a brief overview of this huge topic and also discuss some of the myths and facts of GMOs.

What Are GMOs?

Humans have been modifying the genomes of plants and animals for our benefit for thousands of years using a process known as artificial selection, or selective breeding. This involves selecting organisms with desirable traits and breeding them so that certain characteristics are perpetuated. This could be a teacup dog, a cow with improved milk production or a fruit without seeds. However, this is limited to naturally occurring variations, which is where genetic engineering has found a place.


Genetic engineering allows us to introduce genes into an organism from a totally unrelated species which is commonly carried out on crops, agricultural animals and bacteria. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are designed for many reasons, including: pesticide and disease resistance, drought/frost resistance, increased yields, enhanced nutritional content and as a way to produce drugs or vaccines at low cost on a large scale. When most people consider GMOs they think of agriculture, but the medical implications are wide ranging. For example, genetically engineered bacteria now produce insulin, saving the lives of millions of type 1 diabetics.

Why Do We Need GMOs?

While it is true that a major problem with feeding an over burgeoning global population relates to the distribution of the food that we do produce, if population growth does not slow down then we are going to need to find new ways to meet food demands. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN has estimated that we will need to grow 70% more food by 2050.

There are several ways that this could be achieved. We could destroy valuable rainforests to make way for agricultural land, but I don’t need to go into the reasons why we should not do this. We could stop eating as much meat, given that the crop calories we feed to animals could meet the calorie needs of 4 billion people, but few are willing to do this and meat consumption has quadrupled in the last 50 years. We could invest more in hydroponics (growing crops efficiently indoors, without soil), which is what many countries are looking into. Or we could create GM crops.


Many things threaten food security, such as crop or animal diseases, pests and climate change. Weather is becoming more unpredictable and extreme weather is becoming commonplace which is taking its toll on farmers worldwide. The idea behind many GMOs is to address these problems.


Examples of GM Crops

An excellent example is golden rice. Around 250 million children are vitamin A-deficient in the world, which kills and blinds millions each year. While supplement distribution programs exist, they’re expensive and difficult to sustain. The solution? Golden rice.

Researchers added two genes to white rice, one from a soil bacterium and another from the daffodil, which synthesize a precursor of vitamin A called beta-carotene. This pigment makes various foods orange and hence makes the rice appear golden. The daffodil gene was later swapped for a corn gene to further increase the amount of beta-carotene produced.

White rice is a staple food in many countries but it’s not usually a source of vitamin A. One bowl of golden rice meets 60% of a child’s daily vitamin A needs. However, this product has been met with significant opposition, especially from Greenpeace, mainly because many people believe it will lead to widespread acceptance of GMOs. The fact remains: it’s a viable solution to a real world problem. It was also developed by foundation-funded academic researchers and a nonprofit organization, not a big private corporation.


You may also be surprised to find out that around 85% of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. Soy is also heavily genetically modified; one particular soybean was engineered to produce high levels of oleic acid because it is thought that this may lower LDL cholesterol, or “bad cholesterol.”

Controversies Surrounding GMOs

There are many controversies surrounding this topic. Some are complete myths, while others raise valid issues.

Labeling

It is estimated that as much as 90% of commodity crops used in the U.S.’s food supply are genetically modified. Few people are aware of the extent of GMOs because the food industry does not label them through fear of sparking safety concerns in customers. Some have suggested that labeling would be like putting a skull and crossbones on packaging; however, people argue that they should be able to know what they are eating so that they can make an informed choice.

Mandatory label laws have come into place in certain countries, but they have not resulted in the anticipated reaction. Instead, they have led to an increased pressure for retailers to stop stocking GM products which has reduced consumer choice and at times raised prices. It should be stressed that despite decades of testing, there is no evidence that genetically modified foods are intrinsically more dangerous or worse for you than unmodified food. This fear-mongering then, can come across as anti-science.

Transparency is a hallmark of good science, but when the public does not fully understand the topic it can fuel fear. Mandatory labeling is therefore a complex issue with valid points from both sides. "GMO" is a fairly meaningless term when applied alone. Genetic modification is just a technique, it is not inherently dangerous. As with all techniques, it's how it's used that matters. Labeling food as "GMO" wouldn't tell you how it was modified, just that it was. A food label with "GMO" written on it really doesn't tell you anything more than "there's science in this food".

Risks To Health

While the genes inserted into organisms occur naturally in other species, there are concerns that altering the natural genome may have unknown consequences. For example, modifications may change the organism’s metabolism or growth rate. There are also concerns that GM foods may expose new allergens to humans or transfer antibiotic-resistant genes to the bacteria naturally found in our gut.

A lot of fear was sparked about the safety of GM foods after a scientist named Gilles-Eric Séralini published a study that found rats fed with Monsanto’s glyphosphate-resistant corn developed more tumors and died earlier than controls. After these results, many demanded tighter regulations whereas others called for an outright ban on the corn. However, numerous problems with the study came to light which led to its retraction from the journal.

First off, Séralini is an outspoken anti-GMO activist. At the time of initial publication he had conflicting interests- he was releasing a book and a documentary on the research. For the experiments, Séralini used Sprague-Dawley rats that are prone to developing spontaneous tumors. He also only used 10 rats for each group, for a period of two years which is almost a rat’s lifespan. The study was described as a "statistical fishing trip" by reviewers - if you test enough variables for long enough, you'll get a result from something. This is not good science. The recommendation for carcinogenicity studies is that 65 or more of each sex should be used. There is a high probability that the results were due to chance.

Furthermore, there have been mounds of better designed studies that have found no health issues, further suggesting that poor study design is the likely reason for the results, not the GM maize.

Terminator Seeds

Research on genetic use restriction techniques (GURT), or more commonly “terminator seeds” or “suicide seeds,” aims to produce sterile seeds/offspring so that if modified plants escape, they cannot propagate in the environment. The idea that companies use these to force farmers into continually buying seeds is a myth.

This technology would be useful in the development of “bioreactor” plants, for example those used in the production of pharmaceutical products such as antibodies or drugs to stop unintended gene release.

People don’t realize that sterile plants are already widely used- take a look at seedless bananas or grapes, but have they enslaved farmers? This technology is necessary and restrictions in the development of GURT harm research into the generation of beneficial crops.



Separating Corporation from Technology

Everyone has heard of Monsanto, and this company is frequently cited as a reason to oppose GMOs. While Monsanto’s business practices may be ethically questionable, Monsanto are not the only company involved in GMO research. Many non-profit organizations and academic institutions are involved in this field. The technology is necessary and disagreeing with Monsanto and having anti-corporation values should not muddy your views on GMOs. If you have a problem with Monsanto, have a problem with Monsanto. Don't extend that to every application of GMOs.



GM Crops Result In Superweeds

Many farmers use herbicide resistant crop varieties, for example GM cotton that can tolerate Roundup. This was very successful initially until herbicide resistant weeds evolved and rampantly spread in various countries, causing huge crop losses. While it has been argued that these GM crops encourage the evolution of herbicide resistance through liberal use, the fact is: it happens whether we use GM crops or not.

Monsanto argued that farmers did not need to adopt traditional methods used alongside herbicides such as crop rotation or varying the chemicals used, which slow herbicide resistance. The studies they carried out in support of this statement were flawed and criticized, which has now led to Monsanto changing its stance and encouraging plowing and a mix of herbicides.

Herbicide resistant crops do have their merits, though, and have caused a significant reduction in herbicide usage and an improvement on environmental impact.


Unintended Spread Of Genes

There has been concern that genes used in the development of GM crops may unintentionally spread to other organisms through a mechanism called horizontal gene transfer. For example, antibiotic resistance genes are regularly used in the process of genetic modification, and there is concern these genes may spread into bacteria, animals or humans, encouraging the spread of disease. While this is a possibility, studies have found that the risks are negligible and that transfer rates are exceedingly low. However, recommendations have been made to avoid using antibiotic resistance genes in creating GMOs.

Outcrossing

A final concern with GM crops is that genes may spread from these plants into conventional crops or related species found in nearby areas, a process known as outcrossing. This could have ecological consequences, such as an increase in fitness or a decrease in genetic diversity. These risks are recognized and measures have been adopted to minimize them, for example engineering the plants so that transgenes are not incorporated into pollen or separating fields containing GM crops and conventional crops.


Genetic modification is simply a tool. Like all tools, the application is what matters. All new technologies require review and testing, but fears should be based on science and evidence, not a lack of understanding when it comes to new science.

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" - Thomas Jefferson

"There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches." - Ben Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" - John Adams

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” (Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.)

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance." - Thomas Paine

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." - John Adams

"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." - Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." - Thomas Jefferson

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it." - Ben Franklin

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas Paine

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." - George Washington

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -- Ben Franklin

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another." -- Ben Franklin

Note to self:

Vicodin is hydrocodone with Acetominophen. Taking too much can cause APAP toxicity.

Percoset is oxycodone with Acetominophen.

Oxycontin is time-released Oxycodone.

Toll the Great Bell Once!
Pull the Lever forward to engage the
Piston and Pump...
Toll the Great Bell Twice!
With a push of Button a fire the Engine
And spark Turbine into life...
Toll the Great Bell Thrice!
Sing Praise to the
God of All Machines
Catechism of the Autoculus of Mars

"Any epiphanies about gender politics were a projection of your feminine insecurity."

Best quote of Rick and Morty.

Psychedelic philosopher Alan Watts may have been right when he wrote that we “cannot be more sensitive to pleasure without being more sensitive to pain.” Prescriptions for SSRIs and MAOIs increased more than 400% over a 20 year interval, all with the aim of boosting serotonin levels to promote happiness and reduce anxiety. Yet millions of years of evolution have witnessed a menagerie of venomous animals independently leveraging serotonin for a contradictory effect: the infliction of excruciating pain.

Ninety percent of our serotonin keeps the gastrointestinal system running properly. In the central nervous system, serotonin is responsible for mediating a wide range of feelings including pleasure, contentedness and even appetite and sleep. Antidepressants work by extend the life of serotonin either by blocking enzymes that normally clear it from circulation (MAOIs) or by preventing its reuptake from synapses in the brain (SSRIs). The result is usually a dramatic improvement in one’s sense of well-being.

It’s ironic that an agent of such happiness is equally responsible for so much misery. Subcutaneous injection of even minuscule quantities of serotonin will cause pain sensing neurons called nociceptors to fire wildly. The resulting dump of prostaglandins, bradykinin and substance P results in a state of hyperalgesia; Greek for “above pain.”

No wonder then that so many animals have deployed serotonin in their own defense. The searing pain of a hornet sting is caused in large part by the presence of serotonin in its complex venomous cocktail. So too is the agony inflicted by some sea urchin stings.

Amazingly, the deployment of serotonin in the chemical arsenal of venom cuts a wide swath across invertebrates and even some vertebrates detailed in a new book “Poison: Sinister Species with Deadly Consequences” by Dr. Mark Siddall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York city. 



The deathstalker scorpion (Leiurus quinquestriatus) ranges from North Africa to Pakistan. in addition to serotonin, the deathstalker’s venom includes a lethal mix of agitoxins, charybdotoxin, chlorotoxin, and scyllatoxin.



Species of Phoenuetria, including the wandering spiders and banana spiders are feared for their aggressive behaviour. And rightly-so. A huge dose of serotonin allows them to inflict some of the most painful spider bites. Another venom compound, PhTx3, can result in painful priapism. 



A lot of the lasting damage caused by the venom-soaked foot-long serrated barb of a blue spotted stingray (Neotrygon kuhlii) is due to flesh liquefying enzymes combined with some serotonin just to make sure it’s painful. 



The tenacious bites of Gila monsters (Heloderma suspectum) squeeze venom along grooved lower teeth - which is made only more painful by the presence of serotonin.  Other venom components include hypothermia inducing helothermine, and exendin-4 a synthetic version of which is now a blockbuster drug for controlling type-2 diabetes.



The flashing iridescent patterns on each of three species of Hapalochlaena belie a dangerous beauty. A blue-ringed octopus bite comprises a dizzying neuroactive cocktail of serotonin, tryptamine, octopamine, tyramine, and acetylcholine along with a deadly dose of tetrodotoxin.

From a distance, the city was obscured by a looming wall of churning black clouds, it's underside lit with the fires of industry below. From within the inky depths of the roiling clouds came the occasional flash of lightning burning arcs through the smog while thunder echoed across the empty plains. Surrounding the city were titanic walls, monolithic slabs of riveted steel and concrete, bleeding rust as the incessant rain from the ever-present clouds dripped onto the grinding, clanking metalworks below. Every surface was stained with rust, ash, or the oily residue of rainfall that bit and stung flesh exposed to the elements.

The people, sulking, shifty individuals carted into the labyrinthine halls of the city by monorail carts from wherever the shadowy Corporation pulled them from; prisoners, desperate families, war-criminals, workers looking to duck past the surveyers long enough to obtain work pass. Given a rubber slicker and their work doctrines, they dispersed into the bowels of the city to fulfill whatever obligations they had been assigned.

With the thick clouds, day and night blended together into a continuous blur of grinding machinery and the hiss of pistons. Sleep came in short snippets for the workers, usually at the stations where the workers were assigned, always under the implacable, blank gaze of the gas-masked security forces employed by the Corporation to maintain order and put down and civil 'unrest' that may occur. The heavy thud of their boots on the metal grating and the glint from their rifles was more than enough to cow any dissidents with thoughts of stepping out of line.

"Whose users are more stupid 4chan or tumblr (not that all users of 4chan and tumblr are dumb)" ~Tumblr Question

"Honestly? Tumblr.

A lot of the people on 4chan will act like unapologetic assholes, but at least they're not self-righteous about it. And, if shown legitimate proof of somethings, (based on what I've seen) they'll usually accept it, whereas Tumblr prefers to pass around bogus statistics, and cling to emotional pleas, rather than logic.

4chan often behaves like idiots, but they're aware that they're behaving like idiots. That's the whole point. People go there to be anonymous assholes or purpose. Meanwhile, tumblr is filled with bullies and rejects that think they're doing the world a goddamn favor by acting like snide, entitled little shit mongers.

4chan will call you a 'faggot' regardless of gender identity, which appears to be generally understood to the point where no one gives a shit anymore.

Tumblr becomes irrationally outraged when you somehow don't already magically know the 'preferred pronouns' of someone you hadn't even heard of before, even when there 'pronouns' are complete crocks of shit like "bunself", or "princeself". They then become indignant if you don't fall to your knees and cater to every last one of their demented little demands, and treat them like the extra special little snowflake that they think they are.

4chan fields obvious inflammatory comments with relative ease, simply by dismissing them as stupid, humoring them for a laugh, or ignoring them from the start. When vitriol does happen, at least it's most reserved to two morons having a witless tennis match of words while everyone else goads them on for the sake of entertainment.

Tumblr takes every goddamn thing as though it's deadly fucking serious, to the point where people are afraid to voice their opinions on their favorite cookies, lest it somehow 'offends' someone.

4chan will bust your nuts until you can probe a claim you've made.

Tumblr will gladly make viral "news" that the sky has suddenly turned neon green, and is raining Nickelodeon Gak- if there's enough of an emotional, impassioned plea to do so. Especially if their claim their "child" or "younger sibling" saw (and was upset by) this "incident".

If you like something, and express it, 4chan will tell you it's terrible just to piss you off.

Do this on Tumblr, and someone will claim you're "oppressing them" simply because they don't happen to like it. Then, through emotional manipulation, they try and spread the mindset that you're somehow 'scum' just for enjoying something they don't.

While I wouldn't recommend it as a place to go to "have fun", 4chan has actually become more welcoming than tumblr at this point.

And that's just fucking sad." ~Tumblr response.


~4chan's response to the tumblr response

Myth: The "Greatest Generation" of World War II Was Better Than Later Generations



As Tom Brokaw will gladly tell you for the low, low price of $16.95, the Americans who fought in World War II were "the Greatest Generation." The men of that era were, quite simply, special. After all, a man doesn't grow up during the Great Depression and breaststroke across the Atlantic to crotch-punch the Nazi hordes into submission just to wind up some shiftless pot smoking hippie, like their ungrateful kids.



Why It's Bullshit:

The Greatest Generation was just like you, had you been forced to serve in a monstrously destructive war. In other words, they were scared shitless and miserable.

Big emphasis on "forced," because no matter how many times we're told that the Greatest Generation went to war because it was "the right thing to do," it doesn't change the fact that two-thirds of the U.S. servicemen were drafted. But we're told that the Greatest Generation was different from those who've come since, and in a way that's true -- because two-thirds of the men who fought in Vietnam volunteered.


Only partly because 'Nam's such an awesome vacation destination.

World War II's draft dodging numbers dwarf both Vietnam's and World War I's. Desertion rates between World War II and Vietnam were pretty much neck and neck. And when they weren't dodging or deserting, the Greatest Generation was doing the third best thing: getting completely shitfaced. Soldiers in Vietnam took a lot of heat for drug abuse, but the Greatest Generation was dying of alcohol poisoning so fast that the U.S. Army started putting up warning billboards displaying the "Deaths from Poison Liquor to Date" (G.I.s weren't picky about their booze and often drank methanol -- aka antifreeze). Not to be outdone, creative sailors sometimes swilled the alcohol that fueled torpedoes. When the U.S. Navy caught on and started putting additives in the "torpedo juice" to make the soldiers sick if they drank it, the submariners one-upped them and learned the art of distillation via torpedo engine.

The lesson here is: Never underestimate the resourcefulness of a conscripted serviceman looking to drink away his misery. Drunk finds a way. Drunk ... finds a way.



Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_21091_5-bullshit-facts-everyone-believes-about-wwii_p2.html#ixzz3AbwSN0mc

Research Articles, Evidence and Videos that Prove a Historical jesus, NEVER Existed
The Official jesus Challenge: http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtlwRJgf

The jesus Birther Movement (jBM) Research Database Directory

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtaKiFCa

https://www.facebook.com/JesusBirtherMovement

Debunking the Fraudulent christian Apologist List of Extra-biblical but non-contemporary, claimed “sources” used as jesus “evidence.” (Jewish, “Pagan,” Non-christian, “Secular”)

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtmt2ygH

66 Famous Historians and Writers From The 1st and 2nd Century, Who Never Mentioned Fictional jesus – The Screaming Silence of Real History

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtnCiu1a

Refuting John Meier’s “Minor Figure jesus” claims and excuses, attempting to explain away the fact that nobody in Early Antiquity, mentioned jesus.

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtnIWMxg

The bible claims that fictional jesus was one of the Most Famous people of the 1st century, with tens of thousands of followers – The New Testament is the ONLY Source for jesus.

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtnIZY-h

Exposing the Fictional Character of St. Paul the Apostle AKA Saul of Tarsus: Murdering Terrorist, Hallucinating Homophobe, and Evil Misogynist – Who wrote 13-14 of the 27 NT Books.

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtnMZ4af

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ - By the famous bible scholar: R.G. Price

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion - By the famous bible scholar: Robert Price

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_followup.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

Many believe Jesus Christ was a real person, why?

http://truth-saves.com/jesus-christ

http://stage.i2net.com/joe/kr/chapter4.php?section=3

Did a historical Jesus exist?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Rejection of Pascal’s Wager - Jesus

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jesus.html

Jesus Did Not Exist?

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html

The Historical Evidence For Jesus.

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-historical-evidence-for-jesus.html

Did Jesus Really Exist? - Mark Thomas

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.htm

Did a historical Jesus exist?

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=57

The Truth About “Jesus Christ”

http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Jesus_Christ.htm

Deep research - The true story of the real Jesus

http://www.nazoreans.com/

Jesus Christ the Man: Does the Physical Evidence Hold Up?

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/jesus-christ-physical-evidence-relics-1573/

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

Detoxifying Self-Deception

It can be proven Jesus Christ never existed, and your preacher can’t prove ‘He’ did

http://rense.com/general67/detox.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_27.htm

Did he actually exist? Part 1-2: Range of views. Skeptics. Indicators of existence & non-existence.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno1.htm

Proof #50 - Ask Jesus to appear

http://godisimaginary.com/i50.htm

Is Jesus Christ a Myth?

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Is-Jesus-Christ-a-Myth-Part-One-James-Hannam

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Is-Jesus-Christ-a-Myth-Part-One-James-Hannam?offset=1&max=1

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Is-Jesus-Christ-a-Myth-Part-One-James-Hannam?offset=2&max=1

Choking on the Camel Part 1-2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/choking-on-the-camel-part-1/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/choking-on-the-camel-part-2/

No Unbiased Evidence for Jesus Existence - All the evidence for Jesus is biblical and the evidence outside the Bible makes a strong case for Jesus having being made up

http://www.christisnotrisen.com/extrabiblicalnonwitness.html#_SILENCE_SPEAKS_OF_THE_MAN_WHO_NEVER

http://www.christisnotrisen.com/extrabiblicalnonwitness.html

http://www.christisnotrisen.com/extrabiblicalnonwitness.html#_THE_CHRISTIAN_EVIDENCE

http://www.christisnotrisen.com/extrabiblicalnonwitness.html#_NO_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_EVIDENCE

Was Jesus a Real Person or Just a Figment of Human Imagination

http://www.deism.com/jesusexist.htm

Do Ossuaries Claimed for St. James and St. Peter Prove a Historical Jesus?

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/05/do-ossuaries-claimed-for-st-james-and.html

Jesus Never Existed at All

http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/jesus-never-existed-at-all

What If Jesus Never Existed?

http://theheartofreason.com/2009/03/09/what-if-jesus-never-existed.aspx

Was there a real Jesus?

http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor/ahistor1.htm

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

http://www.christianitydisproved.com/jesus.html

Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity?

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

History’s Troubling Silence About Jesus by Lee Salisbury (3 places to read this)

http://mnatheists.org/news-and-media/letters-and-essays/111-historys-troubling-silence-about-jesus-by-lee-salisbury

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Salisbury1012.htm

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article102.html

EARLY JEWISH WRITERS AND THEIR SILENCE CONCERNING A HISTORICAL JESUS - Hebrew For “The House Of Truth”

Craig M. Lyons Ms.D., D.D., M.Div.

http://theancientsacredmysteries.com/early_jew_writers_silence_jesus.htm

Caseagainstfaith.com provides critiques of Christian apologetics.

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/

REFUTING MISSIONARIES by Hayyim ben Yehoshua

PART 1: THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

~Kenneth Humphreys

Welcome to Enlightenment! – Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Fabricating the Jesus Story – Exposing the Fictional Actors/Writers: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter – Research By: Kenneth Humphreys of JesusNeverExisted.com

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtnLvAYf

53 Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOb1Xsilrp-5CBpbMOlfnTQ/videos

~Earl Doherty

Was There No Historical Jesus? THE JESUS PUZZLE

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfindex.htm

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset1.htm#Lynn

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset2.htm

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset3.htm

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset4.htm

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset6.htm

THE JESUS THE JEWS NEVER KNEW

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvZindler.htm

THE JESUS PUZZLE - Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case

Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesRefut1.htm

~Truth Be Known - Bible Scholar - Acharya S - D.M. Murdock

http://www.truthbeknown.com/

http://www.examiner.com/freethought-in-national/d-m-murdock

Bible Scholar - Acharya S - D.M. Murdock - The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Bible Scholar - Acharya S - D.M. Murdock - The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

~Freethoughtpedia

Did Jesus really exist?

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Did_Jesus_really_exist%3F

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/A_Silence_That_Screams

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus

http://dougshaver.com/christ/socrates.html

~Infidels.org

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ - Scott Oser

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

Did Jesus Christ Really Live? Marshall J. Gauvin

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

The Truth About Jesus. Is He A Myth?

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html

Josh McDowell’s “Evidence” for Jesus - Is It Reliable?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

The Jesus of History was written in a book called “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell. Here is A Reply to Josh McDowell by: Gordon Stein, Ph.D.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html

Josh McDowell’s “Evidence” for Jesus - Is It Reliable? by Jeffery Jay Lowder

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

~Bible Scholar - Dr. Richard Carrier

Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by Dr. Richard Carrier

http://www.strangenotions.com/questioning-the-historicity-of-jesus/

Jesus Studies: http://www.richardcarrier.info/jesus.html

Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship - Richard Carrier

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bible.html

Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? - Richard Carrier

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/

Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story - Richard Carrier

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/

The Richard Carrier Library

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/

~Frank R. Zindler

DID JESUS EXIST?

http://www.websitesonadime.com/ffwic/didjesusexist.htm

Robert M. Price INTERVIEWS Frank Zindler - The Christ Myth

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/frank_zindler_the_christ_myth/

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources BY Frank R. Zindler

http://www.amazon.com/The-Jesus-Jews-Never-Knew/dp/1578849160

~Thomas Brodie

Brodie on Jesus by Richard Carrier

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2795

Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus—Book review (Pt. 1-3)

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2013/03/21/thomas-brodie-pt-1/

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2013/03/26/thomas-brodie-pt-2/

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2013/03/31/thomas-brodie-pt-3/

Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Discovery/dp/190753458X

~Rene Salm

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/tag/jesus/

The Myth Of Nazareth: The Invented Town Of Jesus - Paperback
Frank R. Zindler (Editor)

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Nazareth-Invented-Town-Jesus/dp/1578840031/

Did the city of Nazareth even exist during the claimed life of fictional jesus?

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtmhNPQW

~Thomas Verenna

Did Jesus Exist? The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship

http://www.academia.edu/1825948/Did_Jesus_Exist_The_Trouble_with_Certainty_in_Historical_Jesus_Scholarship

~Thomas L. Thompson

Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus

http://www.amazon.com/This-Not-Carpenter-Historicity-International/dp/1844657299/

The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David

http://www.amazon.com/The-Messiah-Myth-Eastern-Roots/dp/022406200X

~Tom Harpur

On The Pagan Roots Of Christianity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqlSuvAAjkM

~Harold Leidner

The Fabrication of the Christ Myth

http://www.amazon.com/Fabrication-Christ-Myth-Harold-Leidner/dp/0967790107

~Iron Chariots Wiki

Jesus Christ 

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Christ

Existence of Jesus

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Existence_of_Jesus

Mythicism

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythicism

~Rational Response Squad

http://www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/2889

http://www.rationalresponders.com/tacitus_lucian_and_josephus

~Atheists.org

Did Jesus Even Exist?

http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist?

Jesus Myth

http://www.atheists.org/Jesus_Myth

How Jesus Got a Life

http://www.atheists.org/How_Jesus_Got_a_Life

Where Jesus Never Walked

http://www.atheists.org/Where_Jesus_Never_Walked

Was Jesus a Jew?

http://www.atheists.org/Was_Jesus_a_Jew%3F

~Derek Murphy

http://www.jesuspotterharrychrist.com/

http://www.academia.edu/1260452/Jesus_Potter_Harry_Christ

~G.A. Wells

Earliest Christianity (1999)

Professor G.A. Wells continues the debate about the origins of Jesus and the development of Christianity. Drawing on the writings of recent theologians and historians and alluding to his latest book, The Jesus Myth, he throws light on the early history of Christianity.

G. A. Wells Replies to Criticisms of his Books on Jesus (2000)

Professor Wells replies to Rev. Neals’ attacks on his position.

A Reply to J. P. Holding’s ‘Shattering’ of My Views on Jesus and an Examination of the Early Pagan and Jewish References to Jesus (2000)

Wells replies to Holding’s attacks, showing how Holding has misunderstood his position. Wells also defends his position on the early Pagan and Jewish references to Jesus.

A Resurrection Debate: The New Testament Evidence in Evangelical and in Critical Perspective (2000)

Professor Wells’ commentary on the debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew on the resurrection of Jesus.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/index.html

image

~Videos

David Fitzgerald Skepticon 3 “Examining the Existence of a Historical Jesus”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE

Funny - Jesus Never Existed - Dusty Smith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTqyocFOMXE

Richard Carrier: The Historicity of Jesus ► 33:05 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XORm2QtR-os

“Did Jesus Exist?” Skepticon 2 Redux Richard Carrier ► 59:56 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4LvKvIWJw

TTA Podcast 101 - Did Jesus Exist (with Dr. Richard Carrier) ► 57:19 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Gs-LUqv-M

Richard Carrier’s Bayesian Challenge to Jesus Studies ► 26:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IhTivMDfq8

Why I Think Jesus Didn’t Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind ► 60:05

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Robert M Price - Jesus myth in Mark’s Gospel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O7vlqy3JnQ

Robert Price - The Case Against The Case For Christ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KQaBxRt_bM

Sam Harris weighs in on Historicity of Jesus http://www.thinkatheist.com/video/sam-harris-weighs-in-on

Sam Harris - Believing Reason - Aspen Ideas Festival http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxICko6yJP4

Religion Soup: Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Craig Evans debate the question “Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?” The first evening of the debate took place Jan 19, 2012 at St. Mary’s University. 2 hours and 16 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZakwU4m9IJg

This second evening of the debate took place Jan 20, 2012 at Acadia University. 1 hour and 57 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr6KX3wM71s

Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthSurge/videos?query=jesus

Did Jesus Exist? The Atheist Experience http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1xl4vS19LI

The Existence of Jesus - Christopher Hitchens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXXqVZFyEpg

The True Core Of The Jesus Myth - Christopher Hitchens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE

Christianity Exposed (Part III: The Jesus Myth) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTrQYkxu1zA

Proving that Jesus is imaginary http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/video4.htm

The Jesus Debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWuMFhoYNVo

~Making a Messiah 1-8

Making a Messiah, Pt. 1 (What do we know about the NT authors?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVJWql-xGTY

Making a Messiah, Pt. 2 (Old Testament interpretation)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08k6s2zKLsA

Making a Messiah, Pt. 3 (Messiah who missed the mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgcR8vbkpRk

Making a Messiah, Pt. 4 (The not-so-good news)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SqVwmlEE9A

Making a Messiah, Pt. 5 (Sacrifice denied)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D_hjrYu5Gw

Making a Messiah, Pt. 6 (The second coming - coming soon!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_cIR5ATVb4

Making a Messiah, Pt. 7 (Was Jesus a false prophet?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SV3W1qr_r0

Making a Messiah, Pt. 8 (Disciples who suffered and died for a lie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz3IODFaLzY

~Jesus Has Left the Building 1-5

Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 1 (The Bible)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLC3XZ4FRlw

Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 2 (Josephus and the Talmud)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLz89TIegy8

Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 3 (Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlE89XULcrk

Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 4 (Celsus, Lucian, and Thallus)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9FHxFiZ9Ow

Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 5 (Objections)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RGPJN1e7Y8

image

~TruthSurge: Excavating The Empty Tomb (beyond a reasonable doubt) PART 1-18 (37 VIDEOS)

Part 1-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOzCMy9e5E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msZ5X3uyeeA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YZ_aWPswkk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq51uHhbF90

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTJT67kgsfc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy-4iS1qfRo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJAcX_K5YA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyhKhpFppI8

Part 9 A&B

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuNw5cvAldc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9betplIzaKI

Part 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIpo8Fqx2eA

Part 11 A&B

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_5OA0YGvDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT-8ssJMm9c

Part 12 A&B

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDutiv4L-qQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBcYuNnmawY

Part 13 A&B

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiCpKXFd8Pw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo_iZ4YJ4Mc

Part 14 A-D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYL9C24rHI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM

Part 15 A-F

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKcEz42MEmI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYnCQDUo_c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywjLqWDVxEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAt-PAkgqls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avubLYDurPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gsNhuevoYs

Part 16 A-G

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT3IlqM84jQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-s6erXc-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dGe9Hp6dGc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugLMS7RRJQE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv8sR9vJ6Nw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X3Mq48ioGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecaTzz-AKPM

Part 17 A&B

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr4U_7v0cvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFzXQPYwQKk

Part 18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSW4Er85C_0

Take The Official jesus Challenge here: https://www.facebook.com/JesusBirtherMovement

The jesus Birther Movement (jBM) Research Database Directory http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtaKiFCa

https://www.facebook.com/JesusBirtherMovement

http://www.facebook.com/JesusBirtherMovement/info

Pics: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.479618288746003.105913.195326073841894&;type=3

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=498602303514268

Please Join Pages In Our ExposingReligion Network

http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/20825271431

Replacing the fraudulent-commercial images of je$u$ with truthful ones

http://www.facebook.com/FixingJesusImages

See an organized listing of ALL of our research blogs:

http://tmblr.co/ZTwOHxFnyTrm

If Tumblr Were Reality

Huh, finally someone explained it.


"'cis' is a Latin prefix, and was traditionally used in chemistry. It means 'here' or 'on the same side of'

'trans' is a prefix which means 'across' or 'on the other side'

so a cisgendered person would be someone whose sex and gender match. Whereas a trans person would not."

"Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

​The Conversation
Firstly, what’s an opinion?

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”

Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines. But no-one assumes Dr. Brown is an authority on the physics of nuclear fission; his job is to comment on the policy responses to the science, not the science itself.

So what does it mean to be “entitled” to an opinion?

If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

On Monday, the ABC’s Mediawatch program took WIN-TV Wollongong to task for running a story on a measles outbreak which included comment from – you guessed it – Meryl Dorey. In a response to a viewer complaint, WIN said that the story was “accurate, fair and balanced and presented the views of the medical practitioners and of the choice groups.” But this implies an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise. Again, if this was about policy responses to science, this would be reasonable. But the so-called “debate” here is about the science itself, and the “choice groups” simply don’t have a claim on air time if that’s where the disagreement is supposed to lie.

Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: “there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust,” and it’s no part of a reporter’s job to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise.

The response from anti-vaccination voices was predictable. On the Mediawatch site, Ms. Dorey accused the ABC of “openly calling for censorship of a scientific debate.” This response confuses not having your views taken seriously with not being allowed to hold or express those views at all – or to borrow a phrase from Andrew Brown, it “confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue.” Again, two senses of “entitlement” to an opinion are being conflated here.

So next time you hear someone declare they’re entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, you’ll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way."