Why can’t singles adopt kids?

Why can’t a single easily adopt children?

The kid would be a hell off a lot better than living in a foster home where kids are seen as nothing more than a government paycheck. Maybe I will never get married, but I could probably afford to take care of one kid, at least if the adoption costs aren’t like 30 k right off the bat. I would probably enroll the kid in after-school programs and tutoring, have the kid help with some chores around the house, and raise an independent, self-reliant, and well-read child. A stay at home parent isn’t necessarily better off she’s gonna watch TV or brainwash the kid, and two parents is hardly better if both are working.

Isn’t this just a religious bias against people who don’t follow the conventions?

And why shouldn’t I be “prejudiced” against Christians?

I don’t agree with what Dawkins retweeted. This website with its platitudes did not make me see a reason to become more accepting when dealing with irrational bigots. The only parts that spoke to me were the point that if you can’t correctly explain someone else’s argument and have it accepted, then you don’t understand it enough to refute it. Active listening is a problem in our society. Of course, theists are bad listeners and very impatient so you will not usually get that far.

The other line I liked from the comments is that “Perfection is the enemy of the good” -Volataire. I take it to mean that we must choose our allies and work for small changes if we are to be progressive, rather than being ideologically pure isolationists/special snowflakes. It’s true I don’t agree with Sam Harris on certain things, while he is clear minded and has insights in others and shouldn’t be shunned simply because he doesn’t fit into a familiar box idealize.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/

So if I agree with that, then what is the problem you ask? I’ll tell you. Reddit and others tell you to attack ideas and not people. So It’s okay to attack Christianity or Islam but not Christians or Muslims. I question why not?

The two are interwoven. If you are a Christian you subscribe to Christianity.

You will potentially act in ways that hurt me. If an skeptical atheist hears a voice and sees visions telling him to go to an abortion clinic and blow up some doctors, he will dismiss it and get psychiatric help. A Christian might too, but he could potentially think It’s the voice of God. That alone makes Christians a threat. And generally Christians are predictable, irrational bigots, and are relatively lame to hang out with. I feel justified in disliking Christians and attacking them along with Christianity. The only argument that might stay me is that attacking groups of people and/or individuals can sometimes be ineffective or counter-productive.

Moreover. I do not respect their underlying epistemology enough to even respect a difference of opinion as I might with someone who looked at the same set of facts I did, and came to another opinion of politics. That’s just finding a difference of view when there is a margin of doubt. But with Christians their underlying facts are definitely wrong. And if I attack Christianity you will still feel insulted that I don’t respect your core values, and react as though I attacked you personally. Why keep up the pretext of not attacking them? For civility? As Hitchens quipped, “Civility is overrated.”

What do kids find cool now?

I was just thinking about the things kids found cool in the 90’s which were in turn influenced by earlier things.

Back then yo-yos and skateboards were cool, and then “hackers” thanks to the Cyberpunk fad, the sudden influx of computers, and the Matrix. Rollarblading was cool for a while. Blonde kids who were edgy and cynical were cool. What about now?

Have the same things evolved into fidget spinners and those hover board things? And what is cool attire today? Is it still Hawaiian shirts with shades, or the classic black leather motorcycle jacket? I’m not sure, but coolmess doesn’t seem to be changing that rapidly. Some kids seem to be enamored with fast talking youtube celebrities who make factoid videos or film themselves doing stupid things. Is rationality or cosmopolitan internationalism considered cool?

 

And what will be cool in 10 years or then in the distant future?

christian theology is self contadicting

(Not my post.)
The extra-Biblical “free will” theory itself implicitly demonstrates that the Christian god is an evil being. It contains the self-contradictory premise that an allegedly all-good deity would have installed in his humans the ability and the desire to do evil. By definition “all good” means “no bad”, so ipso facto it would be beyond the ability of that god to perform such an evil act as to program his creations this way. We are told to believe that god has, for reasons of his own, endowed humans with the ability to reject “his will for them”, which, since they are made in his own image and likeness, is to do good. Here, humans contradict themselves by imposing limitations of their own imagination on what they represent as the infinite, which, again by definition, cannot be limited by idiosyncratic (and culture-specific) human value judgments such as “good” or “evil.” And, since he is all-knowing, god already knows exactly what mischief this dubious endowment is going to bring about, and who will fail to meet his expectations and who will not.
.
But, oops, since god is also all-powerful, does that mean there is nothing he can’t do, including being evil and good at the same time? Can god make a square circle, a dry liquid, or the proverbial rock so heavy he can’t lift it? God then is reduced to no more than a caricature of a human wish-fulfillment fantasy, happily churning out one logical impossibility after another. Truly, we cannot say anything about god at all, for to acknowledge the obvious evil that he has wrought in the guise of “free will” is to deny him claim to the titles of “all good”, “all knowing” and “all powerful” all at once.
And so it goes. The point of this is the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of Christian theology. The reality of the innate human love of cruelty and selfishness completely voids the concept of a supreme being-creator who is both all-good and all-powerful. And sorry “God works in mysterious ways” just doesn’t cut it. Unless of course you can supply a coherent argument to demonstrate that faith is superior to reason as a means of obtaining accurate information.

 


All revelation in the books can’t be used for scientific discovery or for meaningful prediction. I read some CS Lewis today, and the guy said miracles shouldn’t be defined as events that break the rules of the universe, so fuck off with your logic Hume.

Haha, then everything is a miracle and the word lacks meaning. It’s a miracles my old car started on the first try today, and CS Lewis said regular human births are miracles. Theology is a joke. Religion is for boys dressed in their mothers’ panties who ride litthe pink bikes with the training wheels still on, because they inherited it and the extra wheels make them feel safe.

 

 

 

 

 

How to make your cat like you

Feeding a cat doesn’t do much except create a kind of dependency or trust that you won’t harm her maybe. I’ve found that doing 2 out of these 3 usually makes my cat follow me around fanatically for a day:

Play with her for a long time

Let her head and chin a lot

Let her sleep with you

 

The first one and last one seem most effective. Are women this easy to charm and manipulate? Can I apply these 3 steps to create lasting bonds with humans? Is it even necessary to talk to someone if you do all 3, to still have them like you?

Medium and Longeterm solutions

Let’s assume that some people will always be emotionally weak, and will take the placebo with dangerous side effects called “religion.” If asked, “Would you be able to accept that life ends when you die,” they’ll freak out. Of course, torture can be worse than life, and someday I think people should be born with a suicide switch in their head that they can flip if they’ve been trapped by enemies and are being subjected to extended torture without hope of escape.

Continue reading Medium and Longeterm solutions

Quotes about Cognitive Dissonance

It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. Mark Twain

It is never more difficult to make someone understand a concept than someone whose paycheque depends on them not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair

Voltaire’s and Sagan’s quotes are so similar:

“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe” -Carl Sagan

It’s difficult to reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. – Someone probably

I heard some propaganda about that ice rink you mentioned which you thought Trump fixed for charity, and this seems to be the real story that sets the record straight. It was for publicity because he had no name at the time, plus he was paid to do, it and wanted to build a restaurant next to the rink but was denied. He hasn’t done anything related to philanthropy since then–not that I know of anyway, and I tried multiple times to find something before he got elected.

Seriously, Trump’s fans are desperate to hold up their champion because if they lose faith in their him, they will have no hope. After all, their political philosophy is broken and they have no one else to turn to. I certainly don’t consider this to be a great charitable thing worth trumpeting about.

Reply:

That’s one version.  Another is that he watched the city of New York spend huge amounts of money to fix the ice rink. There were at least two attempts-failures.  He was frustrated by the inefficiency. People were stealing equipment & building supplies. He was given the job & had it done on time & under budget using a different design.  He did put his name on it in big letters. That is his style. Some people really don’t like his style. He is flamboyant!!

Well, that’s exactly what the article says, so there is no difference in view. I would like to point out that he didn’t even lose money on this so I don’t consider it charitable, but that if I granted it was non-selfish philanthropy, it was as far back as the 1980’s and we have no record of anything since then. (We instead have a record of him building businesses that please noveau rich consumers, and his assets going from perhaps 50 million to a few billion. We have no Andrew Carnegie dip in over 30 years.)

If you ever find proof he did philanthropy let me know since I strive for accurate facts to as a basis of clear thoughts. Otherwise I will continue to use to believe he is a selfish scumbag and a frightening demagogue who has hijacked a very desperate population. There is a test for what Wikipedia calls “true believer syndrome”, which is that if a person cannot name a condition that would make them not support a position, they are a zealot. I have seen much evidence that Trump’s diehards will support him no matter what, even if he pulls back on immigration, or any other policy. If there were a president Sanders, I would stop supporting him as soon as he bailed out a major bank Obama-style, or turned into another neoliberal.
The psychological obstacle possessed by Trump supporters is they are so disillusioned with politics and with their own party that no matter what happens, they will find excuses for their champion, because they otherwise will have no hope left. Everything that disagrees with them is dismissed as fake news, or fake statistics without a second thought.
Democrats they know sold out to the corporations, and sacrificed the unions, and embraced deregulation and free trade/globalization under Clinton, (Republicans had already done so even earlier) and there thereby ceased to be a party that represents the interests of the working class. Now there are just two parties for two sets of billionaires and businesses, and I hope there is some kind of backlash to billionaires soon. As long as blind party voting is prevalent (enclosed picture related), I can’t see American politics improving or becoming more democratic, sophisticated and enlightened, unless we obtain viable 3+ party system.
The presidential system component of the “American experiment” certainly seems to have been an early mistake after 200 years of hindsight. If I could trade my citizenship to a multi-party Scandinavian country
with a superior economy (GDP per capita, mean life expectancy, happiness, media freedom, corruption perceptions rating, freedoms, income inequality indexes, direct democracy, average citizen’s voting participation, decentralization, maternity leave, sick/vacation time, criminal reincarnation rate, average education obtainment/scores on standardized testing, labor efficiency, job satisfaction, privacy protection, green technology, social security, state coffers, “open-mindedness,” name just about any statistic for a verifiable improvement) I would reincarnate to Norway, Sweden, or arguably Iceland/Finland in a heartbeat. (Maybe I would still move to Japan because it’s so frigid and rural up there, but at least I wouldn’t be ashamed to talk about the structurally broken political system and prevalent thought processes of where I come from. I wouldn’t have to answer repeated questions when I travel about how I justify distant wars, or governments putting backdoors in our software and networks to better snoop on us either.)