Basically getting a couple of loads off my chest. A largely aimless and poorly-structured rant about appearance, attitudes and insecurities.

First off: Changing Faces. Because they're good, to say the least.

This is me. A fairly large chin, a couple of spots here and there, largely-uncontrollable hair, good eyes, very skinny but fairly healthy nonetheless. Not exactly a model, but not too bad either. Pretty average overall.

 Take the hand away, though, and we find something strange. A lop-sidedness, and a source of more insecurities than I generally care to make public. I'd be being melodramatic and probably plain wrong if I were to say it's the source of every insecurity I have, but it's nevertheless a constant niggle, a constant factor in how I interact with others, particularly strangers and those I don't know all that well.

Firstly, some background. It's called cystic hygroma; a form of lymphangioma. It's a benign condition affecting only about 1000 people in the UK, in which tiny, lymph-filled sacs concentrate during the embryo's development in the womb and form a harmless, squishy mass which slowly grows as the patient does.

Relative to my size at the time, it used to be far larger than it currently is, but during primary school I underwent surgery to remove some of the bulk, as well as several injections with a chemical to reduce the swelling. The chemical used (called OK432) was known to reduce the swelling right down to almost nothing, but was not declared safe for use in the UK until after I had already had the surgery. Surgery makes it (by my sketchy understanding) far less likely for OK432 to reduce the swelling effectively, and so I was left with a noticeable swelling where I might have had next to none.

The effect of the swelling went further than just the cheek. I briefly wore braces to straighten my teeth, but the constant pressure from the cheek, combined with uncertainty over whether further surgery was to take place, was such that the orthodontists abandoned the work and left my teeth in this crooked state:

They are otherwise completely healthy and fine. No decay at all. Never has been. But they are undoubtedly a negative aspect of my appearance, and contribute to the aforementioned insecurities.

I said a moment ago that my appearance is a constant niggle during social interactions. Call it a slight paranoia. Are they looking at me? Why are they looking at me? Is it the cheek they're focussing on? Was that person mimicking me there? The teeth as well. I'll stop talking. And smiling.

etc, etc...

My sense of humour can be strange at times, and deliberately crude and offensive when I know I can trust people around me not to overreact, but beyond that I don't think I'm a particularly difficult person to get on with. I'm reasonably approachable, I hope, if not very approaching myself ("Oh God, what if I'm just an awkward fifth wheel?"). I can trace back my relative introversion to incidents more than six years ago now, to when I deliberately kept myself from expressing most emotions for a long period of time as a coping strategy for the increasing alienation I was feeling. The result was that I snapped, punched someone and endured a year-long bullying campaign driving me further and further down into self-repression. Although I might be mostly over that now, some scars take a long time to heal, and I remain relatively introverted. Taking the initiative in social situations is hard.

There's no sense denying it, or dodging the issue. I am not, and likely never will be, a particularly good-looking person. I can (and now do) do things to make the best of a bad situation, but I still come out at a distinct disadvantage compared to others where, it seems to me, there shouldn't be one.

Attitudes towards appearance and disfigurement in the UK are better than some parts of the world. From my experiences dealing with people from the US, for example, it's apparent that they have a far more cold and unsympathetic view towards it (their obsession with perfect teeth in particular is astoundingly harsh). But I digress. Despite the UK's comparatively good collective attitude towards the issue, there are still enough cuntbags about to ruin one's day every now and again when I might go somewhere busy (I'm looking at you, sort-of-acquaintance last night who brought on this little ramble here when they though I wasn't looking). Attitudes against that kind of douchebaggery are not on a par with those about racist or homophobic behaviour, where they really ought to be.

Why I am not a vegetarian

I love eating meat. I really love eating meat. The taste, the texture, the juices that squelch out when you bite into a rare-cooked steak... The slight crunch of the outside of a chicken leg...
You get the picture.

I also acknowledge that my descendants might look back with disgust at the idea that I would consider eating even one animal, let alone the thousands, nay, tens of thousands of fellow thinking beings that have lived miserable lives and been slaughtered, often brutally, for my personal enjoyment.
I even acknowledge that I may become a vegetarian myself. As society progresses culturally, I have no intention of being left behind. We find ourselves shocked by the bigotry of those who live by the societal norms of previous decades, the people who spout racist, xenophobic and homophobic nonsense. The Daily Mail-readers who cry "It's political correctness gone mad!" whenever a straight-thinking person points out how stupid and hate-filled their comments are.
I have a bit of a prediction of my own about the future. I expect that it will be considered unethical across the Western world to be anything but vegetarian. Meat-eaters will become the backwards old bigots of tomorrow. In all honesty, the vegetarians have the moral high ground and us carnivores know it. And if there is one thing recent history has been teaching us, it is that good ideas have a tendency to win out.

So why am I not a vegetarian already? Simply because I enjoy meat too much. Giving up meat would be depriving myself of one of the top ten most pleasurable things in my life (maybe number 8 or 9?). Not gonna happen, I'm afraid. I'm simply too selfish. It's one of the few things I do that I recognise as being morally bankrupt but continue anyway.

I am rather relying on technology here. The day I taste artificial meat that tastes as good as or better than the real thing is the day I turn veggie. Quorn as it is right now simply does not compare. The texture is totally wrong, although the flavour is getting close. It doesn't have a grain. It doesn't have juices. It's just squishy mush that tastes quite a bit (but not quite) like chicken. And don't get me started on veggie burgers. I have tasted few things more vile.
But as production techniques get more and more advanced, I fully expect to see Quorn and similar products become more like the real thing. I would give it ten to fifteen years before a realistic vegetarian chicken can theoretically be produced (although it might cost a lot), and maybe even less time for minced beef. Steak might be a bit more tricky (it has to be juicy, tender, ooze blood and other fluids etc).

In addition to the obvious moral issue of ending the lives of creatures that think, feel pleasure etc there is also the issue of economics. It requires an area of land about ten times larger to rear livestock than it does to grow the same amount of crops. With significant portions of the human population malnourished twinned with exponential population growth, such an attitude towards agricultural land use is simply not sustainable in the long term.

There is perhaps one argument against vegetarianism: The "the animals wouldn't even have been born if we weren't going to eat them" argument. I don't accept that as a reasonable position. An animal never born is an animal that never suffers.

I don't know if you started reading expecting to see a genuine attempt at justifying my meat-eating. Sorry. Not here. It's just tasty and I'm too selfish to even consider the remotest possibility of giving it up any time soon.

I Really Aught to Respond...

Aught3, the author of Indoctrinating Freethought last month made a response to my post "Philosolosophy time! Absolute truth, morality, Nazis and God." I've left it long enough. Let's actually address what he has to say.

I'll start off by making a bit of an apology for my original post to which Aught responded. Honestly, it was a bit of a mess. I basically sat down and started typing, with no clear idea of where I was going with it. As a result, it probably came across as a confused rambling with half-formed ideas. Which is, in all honesty, probably fair comment.

I agree with Aught for the first five paragraphs, until he says the following. On quoting what I said about Nazi wrongness being subjective, he says:

"But is this test sufficient? What if we change the topic and consider a flat-Earther? Surely there is a single flat-Earther who considers their position on the shape of the Earth to be justified, or - if not - we can at least agree there is the capacity for someone to consider the flat Earth position justified. According to Nasher’s test this makes the issue of the planet’s shape subjective, but earlier we agreed that this was an objective question. I would submit to Nasher that his central test for subjectivity leads to outcomes that he would reject."

I think the issue lies is a failure of communication on my part. I was not trying to use the question of whether someone can hold an opposing viewpoint as a test for whether something is objective or subjective. Rather, it is closer to a "property" if you like, of subjective viewpoints.
I made the claim that moral viewpoints can only ever be considered opinions, but I never really justified this particular point. I took it (mistakenly, perhaps) as a given.

So let's try and justify it:

I make the claim that moral standpoints are inherently subjective. Whether something is morally right or wrong cannot be determined as an objective fact, but instead varies from one individual to another.

Aught uses the example of "apricots taste better than strawberries" as an example of something subjective. I'll go further. I say that "sugar tastes better than elephant dung" is also subjective. Now, you will be hard pressed to find a single person who enjoys the taste of elephant dung over sugar. But we shouldn't limit ourselves to our species. I'm sure dung beetle larvae might beg to differ, for example. Or an alien species to whom monosaccharides are toxic, perhaps.

In a similar way, I make the claim that moral issues can only ever be subjective in nature. Certainly, we might be hard-pressed to find a human who considers the Nazis morally righteous. But what about, say, an alien species to whom, for whatever reason, the belief that eugenics and cruelty to ones' own kind is right is evolutionarily beneficial? Might not it seem completely natural to them to admire the Nazis? Who is to say they are in the wrong? What standards do we use as a frame of reference? Our own?

Okay, now let's bring this a little closer to home (ie: the real world). It is a fact that variation occurs between humans. This is partly due to genetics and partly due to the effects of our environment. I am doubtful that there are any humans alive who possess sufficiently different genetics to make them excessively prone to bigotry. But there are certainly humans exposed to environmental factors capable of this. A man who lives in poverty whilst many people of a certain group live well might be inclined towards bigotry against that group of people, even when many of them live in poverty alongside him.

The amount of change to a person's psychology that can be brought about by environmental factors is so enormous that no objective frame of reference can be used against which we can compare their morality. In the case of the Nazis, a person brought up in the modern world is unlikely to be exposed to factors that make them susceptible to thinking they were righteous. But there are of course still some neo-Nazis. And if we go back in time, we see people who were increasingly more bigoted than us. Even listening to old people, brought up in a different environment to my own, I am sometimes shocked by the xenophobic or homophobic bigotry they come out with. But of course, they don't see themselves as immoral. Might not our descendants think the same of even the most moral people alive today?


So, to sum it all up:

A viewpoint can be objectively true or false if there is a clear, immovable frame of reference to which we can compare and contrast the viewpoint.

That the Earth is round is objectively true because there is a clear, immovable frame of reference to compare it to. Namely, reality. We can check. If a flat-Earther checks, they will still see a round Earth, even if they really don't want to.

For a moral view, there is no known absolute frame of reference. Perhaps in our pursuit of science, we will find one. Perhaps the moral objectivists were right all along. Perhaps (disheartening though that would be to us) humans are ourselves an objectively immoral species. But for now, in the absence of any evidence for an absolute frame of reference, I am inclined to believe (mind-bendingly, perhaps) that moral relativism is true.




I think I've made my points clear. But I may have miscommunicated some parts. I guess we'll find out.

Up Next...

Things are certainly starting to heat up a bit. In just three days I will be going to university and my schedule is pretty much full until then. Once there, I will of course be taking part in various activities associated with Freshers' Fortnight (yes, fortnight) and so it may be a while before I can write anything substantial on this blog.

What I will be doing, when I get a chance, is addressing a response to my last post by Aught3 on his blog, Indoctrinating Freethought. His response can be found here.

But yeah, this place may briefly become barren-not that there's that much activity here anyway...

Philosolosophy time! Absolute truth, morality, Nazis and God

Something that frequently annoys me is that staunchly religious (read: usually evangelical) apologists tend to argue that there are absolute moral values, that something is either objectively wrong, objectively good or objectively morally neutral. This is flawed, for reasons I will address in a moment. But something else that irritates me is that they call it "absolute/universal truth".

I feel that they consistently fail to make a distinction between different types of "truth". Some things are absolutely, objectively true. That the Earth is round is an example of this kind of truth. I acknowledge that. But other things are seen differently from person to person. That stealing is wrong is an example of this. Care should be taken to distinguish one type of "truth" from the other.

I hold that moral questions should not be considered to hold absolute answers. I hold that no answers to moral questions should be considered "truth" in any way. Rather, they should be considered and referred to as "opinions".

Let's use emotionally charged examples to show what I mean.

Is murder wrong? The obvious answer is "yes"-at least, it is in most circumstances. The question is incomplete. There still might be circumstances in which murder is objectively good or objectively bad. So let's use a better example:

Were the Nazis justified in the systematic extermination of six million Jews?

Obviously, your answer is "no". I share your sentiments. I consider the Holocaust to be one of the worst crimes committed in human history. If you do not feel the same way, I invite you to jump off a skyscraper and rid the rest of the world of your barbaric views.

And yet, I still hold that the question does not have an objective answer. If that sounds appalling then allow me to explain myself.

Did the Nazis themselves think they were justified? If the answer is "yes", if even a single Nazi considered the holocaust justified, then the answer to this moral question is subjective. In fact, all it takes is the capacity for someone to consider it justified and it becomes subjective. All of morality is like this. One cannot experiment on a moral question and find it true or false. It is open to variation from one person to another. All moral truths are in fact just opinions.

But the other kind of truth is objective. Scientific truth can be tested, observed and determined one way or the other. Probably. Scientists are always careful that nothing should be considered definitely true. But not because it is a matter of opinion. Opinion does not affect how true something is in science. But there is always the chance that the scientists have got it objectively wrong, or at least, objectively not quite right.

The Earth is shaped like a slightly squashed sphere. That is a fact. It does not matter if you believe the Earth is flat. A flat-Earther cannot walk walk to the edge of the world, not matter how hard they try.

The Earth is orbiting the Sun. That is also a fact (although actually, the Sun also orbits the Earth, but the Earth is so small that the Sun just wobbles a bit as the Earth zooms round once a year). It doesn't matter if you are a die-hard geocentrist.

The universe is probably about 13.72 billion years old. That is once again a fact. It will not be 6000 years old just because you might be a creationist.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Does God exist? Is it the god of the Bible (definitely not, I'm afraid) or some being that bears some aspects of the Biblical God? Or is it a Deist god, that made the universe, then let it do its own thing?

Whatever the case, I hold that this is a scientific question. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either he/she/it is like this, or like that. There is no middle ground. Claiming it as a theological question is just a way to dodge the issue. Trying to prove it one way or the other just by logic is fallacious.

We must do the scientific thing. When a scientist wants an answer, they look for positive evidence. They experiment. A being that can create Quasars and galaxies should leave a trace of its existence. If there is no physical, tangible evidence, then one should dismiss the hypothesis and formulate a new one.

There is no physical, tangible evidence for the existence of any kind of god, spirit, higher power or life force. The religious should, in my opinion, move on.

Two exchanges between myself and others on Facebook

Posted on the off-chance some people might find it interesting:

On the Facebook group "Smashing up your own city because you have the IQ of a ham sandwich" someone called Wayne Lush posted the following:

Wayne Lush: "Vote BNP this stuff won't happen"

My response was:

Me: "What, because the BNP would have sent in the SS by now and gunned the rioters down? Because they would have sent them to concentration camps? Fucktarded though the rioters may be, the BNP in power is by far the greater of the two evils."

I then received a private message from someone else called Mary Kingdon (not "Kingdom"):

Mary Kingdon: "Hey, I don't like this comment. Please remove it. [she then posted a copy-paste of my comment] Link to content:

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=175989085806344&id=175743665830886"

'Ooh!' I thought. 'A chance to argue with a stranger on the internet! I must respond.'

Me: "With all due respect, I wouldn't take it down even if the Prime Minister, the Dalai Lama and the Archbishop of Canterbury said together that they were offended. One right we do not have is the right to not be offended.

You could perhaps persuade me that my comment is inappropriate or disproportionate-in which case I will still leave it up for historical purposes, but add a disclaimer in the same comment section rather than take it down and pretend I never said it.

In any case, I can't see why a reasonable individual would dislike my comment. It is an attack on both the stupidity of the protesters and the policies of a far-right, neo-Nazi political party."

Her response then baffled me slightly:

Mary Kingdon: "Bullshit. I have been offended by your arrogant and childish comments. I abhor your nazi tendencies as would all right thinking Brits. You just jumped on a bandwagon and followed the pack mentallity which is what the youths were doing. Because you lack respect for others in the same way. Oh and don't waste time replying because I will have blocked you from doing this."

So I replied, with no real idea what the fuck they were talking about at this point:

Me: "Nevertheless, I shall reply, for there is some chance you shall read what I have to say.

I feel you may not have actually read what I said. What "nazi tendencies" did I exhibit? I am the one opposing the BNP. The BNP are the ones with Nazi tendencies.

I am not sure what you mean by "pack mentality". When I typed my original comment, it appeared to my screen that there were no other comments below. I did not know that others would post.

In what way do I "lack respect for others"?"

On the Norwegian Terrorist Attacks, Fundamentalism and Racism

A long-winded title for a blog post, perhaps. But all three topics are linked.

Firstly, unless you have been living under a rock at the bottom of a lake since yesterday afternoon, you will no doubt be aware that two terrorist attacks were carried out yesterday (22nd July 2011) in Norway.

The first was a bomb attack in the capital, Oslo. Current reports indicate that this killed seven people.

The second attack was far more shocking. A gunman disguised himself as a police officer and visited an island several miles away from the capital which was hosting a youth camp organised by the ruling political party. In the confusion following the bomb in Oslo, he was allowed access to the camp. He then opened fire on the campers, killing at least 84 people in the half hour before he was arrested.

This is stunning. A bombing is in itself a brutal, vicious thing to do, but gunning down 84 defenceless, innocent people is the action of a person who barely deserves the title "human." To carry out such acts, the gunman must have been completely level-headed and utterly callous.

Despite initial speculations of an attack by Al Qaeda or Gaddafi, the gunman was in fact a Christian fundamentalist.

Interestingly, Christianity was trending this morning on Twitter. Let's see what people on Twitter had to say on the subject:

"The murderer in Norway is not a Christian, and these evil actions have nothing to do with Christianity."

"He doesn't represent Christianity."

"That isn't fundamental Christianity. Or even mental Christianity. It's just insanity."

Et cetera, et cetera...

Of course these acts aren't representative of Christianity. Of course this man is an exception to the rule. But he is a Christian. That is undeniable. Trying to deny that is like trying to deny that he is Norwegian because most Norwegians don't do that sort of thing.

Religious fundamentalism is a backwards and thoroughly ridiculous stance that has thankfully almost died out in the West (with the notable exception of the United States).

I expect, then, that we'll see the Daily Mail on Monday foaming at the mouth about how Christianity is incompatible with modern democracy and that churches should be closed down. After all, didn't they say just that after the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks?

Ah, my mistake. Most Christians in this country have the same colour skin as us. How silly of me.

Seriously, though, there is a problem. All too often people attack Islam as backwards, medieval or barbaric without taking into consideration that precisely the same thing could be said of Christianity.

Ah, you might think, but what about all the pictures we see of Muslims holding up signs reading "ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD" and "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM"? Isn't that evidence that Islam is more inherently fundamentalist than Christianity?

No, it is not. Hands up who has wandered around town, or been on public transport and come across a fundamentalist preacher telling indifferent passers-by to accept Christ into their hearts or suffer eternally. Now hands up who has seen Muslim preachers doing the same for Islam. One at the back. Thought so.

Then I ask: why we do not see pictures of these Christian preachers plastered just as frequently over the pages of the Daily Mail and The Sun? I would hazard a guess that it can be summed up in one word:

Racism.