My Twitter posts

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Feminism, circular logic, burden of proof and confirmation bias. ( script for a video)

Feminism, circular logic, burden of proof and confirmation bias.


So you used circular logic for explaining patriarchy and systems of oppression, someone said that your reasoning was fallacious and redirected you to this video article. You might be wondering: why would I listen to read a cis white man explaining how my argument is wrong, that’s mansplaining, he’s probably a masculinist. First of all, thanks for the labels! Stereotyping is always fun to disprove! Second, this video  article is not trying to be condescending, I really think it will make you reconsider your argument so the least you can do is listen  read, then go complain about my privilege on twitter.

So what is circular reasoning exactly? Circular reasoning is when you link multiple concepts or objects, usually two, and claim that the causal link between them is that they cause each others (it’s also known as assuming the conclusion). You might be thinking at this point: ‘’well what is wrong with that, plenty of things cause each others.’’ And that would be true if you oversimplified reality. Let’s take the water cycle for example. Someone could say: ‘’water bodies cause rain clouds to appear and the rain from those clouds cause water bodies to appear’’. That statement, in this state, would be false, as it is blatant circular logic. Water bodies don’t directly create rain clouds and vice-versa, it’s the different state of matter (liquid gases and solids) that cause this phenomenon, so someone explaining how temperatures change the state of water from liquid to gas and then from gas to liquid to explain the water cycle would not be using circular reasoning. Why? Because you change the causal link, yet the correlation between water bodies and rain clouds was maintained. Let’s think about this again. the first proposition: ‘’water bodies cause rain clouds to appear and the rain from those clouds cause water bodies to appear’’ was saying A (water bodies) caused B (rain clouds) and B caused A, an obvious circular logic. But the second statement ‘’ temperatures change the state of water from liquid to gas and then from gas to liquid to explain the water cycle’’ say A (Different states of matter because of the temperature of particles) cause B (a cycle of C, water bodies, turning into D, rain clouds, and then back to C) But does not say that B (the water cycle) cause A (the different states of matter). As you can see you can prove the existence of a cycle but the cause must be exterior to the cycle itself. Also remember that correlation does not equal causation. If I see a rise in air conditioners sales and a rise in the numbers of ice cream sold, there is correlation, both graphics showing an increase at the same time, but any sane person would understand that there is probably no link at all between those two phenomenon (The number of ice cream sold do not increase the number of air conditioners sold and vice-versa). But there could be a third factor, like let’s say, summer temperatures, that link those two things by being their common cause.
 So now to put back your argument in context. You probably said, in a convoluted way, that patriarchy cause oppression of women, that this oppression cause sexism, and that this sexism reinforces or cause patriarchies to exist.  As you can see yourself, adding an element or a thousand elements to a circular reasoning does not make it any better: it is still fallacious. If you could manage to prove this as a cycle with an external cause it would be a very strong argument. I know what you are thinking: that external cause would be gendered socialization.
Well thought! You are sharp! However, because of the burden of proof, you failed to prove that gendered socialization is the direct cause of this cycle. What do I mean by burden of proof? Well burden of proof is simply that when someone make a claim, the person claiming the existence of something need to produce the evidence for it, without actually needing that something to prove his existence. I don’t need to travel to France to know that France exist, and I don’t need to see a horse in person to know they exists, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of both of those things, despite their obvious state of being. So when someone claim that gendered socialization is a thing, AND have severe consequences on the real world, like a so-called ‘’rape culture’’ for example, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those making those claims, not those refuting and doubting those claims. You cannot prove the non existence of something, only the existence of something, therefore when there is not enough good evidence supporting existence of, let’s say, unicorns, the default position is to assume that the said thing, like unicorns, does not exist until proven wrong. That they probably don’t exist. Because all the opposing party have to produce is convincing evidence, you don’t even have to show me an unicorn for that, and then I’ll have to support your claim if the evidence is good enough. But that isn’t the case with gendered socialization and rape culture, there is simply not enough evidence, or unbiased evidence, supporting those claims, also just because a study shows that in mixed conversations, for example, men interrupt women more than they do it, does not prove male domination or rape culture, it simply shows that men interrupt women more. There could be a lot of reasons for that, too many in fact, to say that the reasons or conclusions you hypothesized are absolutely right. But you might say ‘’well it’s up to my opponent to produce evidence supporting their different claims’’, and yes, in many cases, your opponent will try to reproduce your experiments to see if the results are the same (and challenge you if the results diverge). But no one need to produce content to criticize yours. If your methodology is biased and unscientific, people can point it out as discrediting the value of your conclusions, and therefore any argument based on those conclusions. If your study is done right, but your interpretations are flimsy and exaggerated, people can also say that you are being intellectually dishonest to make such a conclusion on your study. You could still be right in the end, but meanwhile good science is needed. So, yes, burden of proof is on your side, not them. But remember that you are naturally advantaged, privileged even: Those who proven the existence of something, like horses, France, or that the Earth is not flat (by proving it is round), can rarely be discredited afterwards.
 Now the last issue I want to take on with you: confirmation bias. Confirmation bias happens whenever someone reject an argument without refuting it, cherry pick, voluntarily or involuntarily information to suit their views, or use mental gymnastics to transform an opposing argument into a supporting argument. I even got an example of mental gymnastic. When people point out to feminists that men too can be discriminated for their gender they usually bring up those examples: the child custody cases favor women, men get longer sentences than women for the same crimes and men get laughed at when they report sexual harassment from women. Feminists will usually refute those arguments by either rejecting them entirely (like claiming that ‘’reverse sexism’’ isn’t a thing, despite sexism simply describing gender discrimination, not the gender being discriminated against), or using mental gymnastics. They could say that women getting child custody reinforce the idea that woman are better caretakers than men and therefore it is sexist mainly to women. But they didn’t really address the argument ‘’men can be discriminated against too’’ they just bypassed it entirely. Next one. A feminist could say men getting longer sentences is because women are perceived as weaker and more emotionally fragile and thus are being discriminated against by getting shorter sentences. But how does getting more lenient sentences is negative discrimination against women? By changing the argument, a feminist would use a fallacy, a ‘’begging the question’’ informal fallacy, because the conclusion of that counter argument is a premise in itself. That premise being ‘’women are perceived as weaker’’. That has to be proven as well. Therefore, that counter argument say that the conclusion is right despite being a premise, which is very much fallacious. For the third statement: ‘’ men get laughed at when they report sexual harassment from women’’ a feminist would often ask for more evidence of this, thus using a ‘’move the goalposts’’ fallacy by dismissing a specific argument evidence and asking for greater evidence, which could be impossible or highly difficult to produce. That person could also change the argument to ‘’So we should just assume women never get harassed either, because men get laughed at?’’ thus creating a strawman, or misrepresentation of the opposing argument by exaggerating it. The feminist could also claim, for any of the three statements, that you don’t understand their point of view either because you are not a person of color, a woman or an homosexual and thus cannot see your own privilege or because you are actively profiting and contributing to the White cisgender straight patriarchy. This is incredibly fallacious. It is a special case of bulverism, bulverism being a fallacious mix between a genetic fallacy and circular reasoning. I already explained what was circular reasoning (assuming conclusions) so I’ll explain what is a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy is to think that someone or something history, origin or source have the same meaning or context nowadays. So the special type of bulverism feminists constantly use is the appeal to identity, by claiming that someone arguments are invalid because of their identity. Similar bulverisms, easier to understand, exist, like the appeal to motives. For example, claiming that someone believe in an after life because he or she is afraid of death implicitly assuming that there is no after life is wrong, the motive for that position could be otherwise. Another example, an appeal to profession, would be to assume that a salesman argument of sale is wrong because he has a personal interest in you buying what he sells. It does not make what that person say false, because the logical value of an argument does not depend on who say it, but rather that that argument make sense. So I think you got the points of this video article. The confirmation bias, that tendency to believe and reinforce our own beliefs is strong so it is tempting to get rid of the burden of proof and resort to circular reasoning. But please think thoroughly about that the next time you argue with someone else! I invite you to either check the definitions of common fallacies to be more aware of their existences and exact definitions or to watch read more of my videos posts if you want to see content like this. Thanks for watching  reading! And have sweet dreams! -KeLvin 

P.S This is a script I have for a youtube video, but I suck at video editing and don't own video/audio filming material. So if you are interested in helping me or giving me a platform please email me at kevlap017@hotmail.com

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

I give up

Ok you probably read my last post and thought it would be awesome but I won't go. A lot of shit happened. First I heard that they wanted to charge me a fee for an event my association had to pay. So I posted something about it on Facebook, telling how wrong censorship is, and they banned me on Facebook for the event. The inscriptions were not on Facebook , but whatever, I don't want to argue with them anymore. Turned out it might had never happened (the discussion about me paying extra fees). Just today feminists argued with me that you can prove the non existence of something and had to if you question rape culture or patriarchy. It's fucking impossible you morons. They also said that pointing out the inaccuracies of their argument and sources is not enough ("you can't prove that it is not true"), that I have to produce evidence of the opposite thesis. Morons. I can't stand the stupidity of their arguments. They strawmaned me multiple times and made caricatures of my arguments ("you can't prove gravity doesn't exist, but I believe it doesn't"). Anyway I give up, they are ideologues, lost in their cultist mindset.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Investigating feminism: KeLvin vs sophistry part 1

Investigating feminism: KeLvin vs sophistry part 1


Hi everyone! Today I am announcing that I choosed to start an investigation about feminism in a student association, but not just any association: the biggest one in the province of Québec. I will be dwelving into the feminism of the ASSÉ ( Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante  or in english Student association for syndical solidarity). The ASSÉ is the biggest association of Cégeps and universities here in Québec ( the american equivalent would be colleges and universities I think). I was not certain if I should do anything about that, but when I wrote Feminism and the reverse veneration of the patriarchy  I made my mind: this type of sophistry and intellectual dishonnesty is unnaceptable for students getting a superior education. Yes, it was indeed after a formation camp from that association that I had this amazing discussion. So I thought: ''I could go to the feminist camp next month to see if my concerns are rightful or not'' and so I signed on for the event. But before that, I am going to prepare myself, I will be making a document with all the needed documentation and definitions to argue with those people ( yeah I am kind of crazy to attend a feminist event with the intend to argue, wish me luck). I will record all conferences I will attend to ( going to all of them being unfortunately impossible, many of them being simultaneous or women only, which made me cringes), ask questions, denounce lies and myths, and will ask for sources to fact check. Since I know which studies and statistics are likely to show up my document will have them debunked before hand, so I don't look or feel like an idiot in front of ideologues. I will include the definition of fallacies or circular reasoning I will need to make my point, because those feminists  will surely use a handful of them! I'll also try to take the most raw data possible, and to use THEIR studies, so I am not accused of confirmation bias. I am excited about this (and scared of course, about one or two hundred feminists could be against me there...) and I will update on this story as often as necessary. I'll also publish my investigation/study here, but it will be in french. Don't worry through, a lot of my sources will be in english so maybe you'll be able to follow, and maybe i'll translate it, who knows. Have good dreams! -KeLvin

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

My take on Feminist ''science'' infographic



I made this funny thing  because i'm tired of the '' I did gender studies and blah blah blah patriarchy blah blah blah  proven...'' gender studies are stupid. Sorry you wasted your time getting a super generic degree. You could have done STEM field degrees you know, but those would require to stop whining and start thinking, so patriarchy is a thing and it's evil. P.S i noticed grammar mistakes in the infographic (like proved instead of proven) sorry about that! English is still my second language after all!

Monday, February 8, 2016

Feminism and the reverse veneration of the patriarchy

Gendered Feminism (patriarchy theory) is a religion (kinda)

 So this had to be expected: why would I oppose patriarchy theorists AKA feminists? Well because it's crazy irrational that is. If you ever argued with feminists ( if you went to any feminist conference they probably, men and women alike, group attacked your opinion) you probably noticed how the debate look really similar to arguing with religious people: it go nowhere, and they use fallacious and circular logic to justify their position. I can already hear the feminist screaming from the last sentence... Anyway, I wanted to share  with you a typical conversation I had with feminists coming back from a student formation camp. I won't lay down the whole arguments, because A: the conversation  was in french ( I'm a quebecer) and B: I don't recall the exact words. Here it goes.

So the conversation with the feminists started because I was talking with a guy (also a feminist) about how I think unmixed caucuses, or ''safe spaces'' , as english speakers call it, are a terrible idea. I invoked different arguments: the victimization and infantilization those ''safe spaces'' encourage, the fact that it is basically voluntary segregation, also known as ''ghettoization'', that those spaces might worsen the condition of traumatized persons because avoiding your fears has been shown to reinforce them, that they create ''echo chambers'' where few new ideas are debated, and intellectual masturbation is encouraged, and so on and so on... 

A few feminists women jumped in the conversation, and brought the usual argument: that women ( or black people, or gay people) are oppressed by men ( or white people, or straight people) and thus might feel uncomfortable talking with them. Their ''ultimate'' argument: rape victims won't talk in front of men, because patriarchy. I pointed out that the presence of men hindering the dialogue is a problem: not because men oppressed them, but because they are afraid to express themselves in front of other men. I also pointed out that the presence of men doesn't force those women to stay silent, but if they stay silent, men shouldn't be held responsible. The guy we were talking with said  ''But we can't force women to talk of those issues in front of their oppressors, men''. Why not?  I mean, no one force them to say anything, and not all men are oppressors, their rapist will most certainly won't be in the room... 

That basically at that point I said I didn't think we live in a patriarchy, but that sexism and oppression are still a thing, just not linked to the patriarchy. That when shit got real. They were outraged by that statement, and accuse me of being a ''patriarchy denier'' the french equivalent of ''rape apologetic'' ( or holocaust denier in their eyes). I then proceeded to point out that I do think that the patriarchy, in the sense of a male dominated society, is a real thing... just not in modern day Canada (or US or Europe). I also said that I don't doubt that we most probably lived in a patriarchy in the past, and that some modern countries probably are still in a patriarcal state, like Saudi Arabia. But even with those concessions, they were still pissed off! They kept talking about  ''gendered socialization'' which is , if you had any sociology class, like we all had in this conversation, a real thing describing the way society is reinforcing stereotypes, social roles and prejudices, and help to create our personalities, among other things(read out on Pierre Bourdieu, Habitus concept, it is very interesting). I pointed out that, even if socialization does reinforce gender roles, no law or rule was enforcing them, that both men and women are free to do whatever they want. They responded that equality of rights doesn't equal equality of outcomes, like if that was a terrible thing. I didn't say exactly this, but what I responded meant this: equality and parity are two things, you can have the former without having the latter. They obviously disagreed.

 I also said that I didn't believe we are in a society that systematically discriminate against women in every domain. They were even more pissed off and said it was a fact, not a belief. I then said that opression can also go both ways, which they didn't believe and they asked for examples. I had three I said, while they kept interrupting me ( They criticized me for interrupting them... but it was a four on one debate, if I wanted to make any point I didn't had much choice but to interrupt, since they wouldn't let me say what I had to say because THEY kept interrupting me or speaking one after another...). I didn't even had the time to end saying my first example, that women get the upper hand in child shared custody, that one agressive girl said ''masculinist argument!'' as if that discredited the whole argument. I said that putting labels on people and their arguments is rude and innapropriate. I didn't thought of it at that moment but think about that: it's not because an argument is attached to a certain ideology you disagree with that the intrinsic logical value of the argument disappear or that the person using that argument endorse the associated ideology. Back to my first example, they said that women getting the upper hand in shared custody is, once again, proof that the patriarchy oppress women. How is that? Because it shows that society view women as housewives caretakers. How. Fucking. Convenient. Anything that could constitute a counter argument is also proof of patriarchy, that is conspiracy theory 101.

 So  I said ''Fine, but my next example is undiscutably an example of men being oppressed''. I said: ''For the same crime, men get longer sentences than women'' at first they didn't believe that at ALL, and  then asked if the study I was talking about took others variables, like race or economic status, into account. I said  that yes, they did took into account such variables and any attenuating cicumstances . They then asked more questions, starting what would become a ''move the goal'' fallacy( because they utltimately asked for something that is either impossible to know or that I don't know). ''Was It for the same crime, they asked, because a man killing his wife at gunpoint is different than a woman, who usually kill her husband because he oppressed her'' That made me cringes, like if killing someone can be less of a problem in those cases ( they compared it to self defense... It's not self defense to kill your abusive husband 20 years late, sorry), but I just answered: ''Yes they took into account those attenuating factors, only comparing similar crimes, because no crime is identical to another''. Their response was: that it is impossible to take all those variables into account(spoiler alert: no it isn't, and here is an example of such study) and  since no crime is alike, that study is bollocks ( you could also say that no rape is alike... but they would argue that it is different in that case, sigh.). Since they didn't want to talk about a good point I brought up, they urged for my third example, but nervous as I was I forgot my third example, and they called me out about it, like if that shown that they are right about me! Crazy! I later on point out that in some domains women are privileged, like education ( more female teachers, more females getting diplomas and on and on...), one lady, the most vehement and agressive one, said that this is only true on lower level education (like elementary and secondary schools, aknowledging it but not condemning it because it's not ''important enough'' education, nonsense) , that women get less collegial and university degrees ( and also that female teachers are proof of patriarchy, blah blah blah, same as before). I proceeded to correct her since I had the stats in my bag. She was agressively asking for the stats, so I asked her to calm down and she said that she won't calm down because she think that it is me who is being agressive, sorry not agressive, ''violent'' because I deny patriarchy. I couldn't believe what I just heard! I said that saying ''I don't believe in patriarchy'' is like saying ''I don't believe in God'' and that nothing in that is offensive or violent, but she said that denying the ''fact'' of patriarchy is offensive because it means I deny sexism and women oppression! What!? I calmly explained that since I didn't believe in the premise ''sexism is caused by patriarchy and we live in a patriarchy that oppress women'' doesn't mean I didn't think oppression (or even the concept of patriarchy) exist, I even said the opposite! I also said that since I didn't link those two concepts any argument presuming that those are linked cannot convince me ( like a vegan trying to convince someone that doesn't think animals are equal to humans, that eating animals is infringing their rights). She said, again, that patriarchy is proven, and not a premise. I pointed out that patriarchy is a theory, and thus, have a few premises. She was kinda puzzled here, that's why she just went back to ask about the statistics.

 Back to degrees then. Women get the upper hand in collegial degrees (58%) , BAC degrees ( 63%!) Masters (56%) but not in doctorates (46%, note that's pretty close to fifty, like the masters). She said that the last stat prove patriarchy once again. What the fuck!? 3 categories out of 4 the fourth one being explained by the fact women usually choose degrees that need less lengthy education thus the numbers and you think women are the losers here? What is wrong with her? She added that the fact women are socialized to be discouraged in STEM fields is evidence of patriarchy. EQUALITY IS NOT PARITY! I think I tried to explain this by talking about how quotas are not fair, but maybe I didn't, can't remember if I did. So one of those fine, angry ladies, said the stupidest case of circular logic I ever saw. ''So if patriarchy is not real, where do sexism come from?'' '' I don't know, and I can't know for sure'' I said. She thought the argument was won, but I made a comparison, that her argument is strangely similar to a creationist saying : if God is not real, then where do humans/life come from? She brushed it off saying ''But patriarchy is fact based and real, unlike God!'' I should have answered ''The creationists also think God is a fact'' but I didn't .

 They clearly were tired of the conversation at this point , two of them leaving, enraged at me. I then asked what was the problem, and the agressive one I mentioned before said ''We give up, you are a lost cause, you are not open minded, people around you are probably...'' she paused here, thinking about the end of her sentence I guess, so I said '' Thank you for labelling me. For your information, a few weeks ago I used to think exactly like you, but I changed my mind''. She was kind of shocked here, I would like to think that is because she understood that what she did is wrong, but I think is more likely that she was thinking ''Oh my! How could he quit feminism! He must have been brainwashed by MRAs!''. So that's this conversation in a nutshell, but I must say that I felt oppressed (ironically) and intimidated during this conversation. At one point the agressive woman shouted ''THE PATRIARCHY ISN'T REAL!'' multiple times in a parodic way to humiliate me in front of the other people in the bus who obviously all looked at me frowning and immediatly judging me. She also asked at one point if I was in the executive counsel of my student association, and was relieved when I said no ( like a christian is relieved to know that a politician is not an atheist...). And lastly, when someone said we were going to stop to eat, she asked if we would stop at my CEGEP before ( so I would get out of the bus and wouldn't eat with them) and was relieved that it was the case... So here you have it, feminism is (almost) a religion. I consider myself a feminist, but I'm more on page with equity feminists like Christina Hoff Summers, which I recommended the agressive one should read about. She in turn asked that I learn about Christine Delphy (a french feminist sociologue) and I read about her, basically a typical patriarchy theorist.  Feel free to comment, no matter what gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or anything you might identify as, because patriarchy is a thing of the past (at least here), but his reverse veneration is only starting. Bye bye! -KeLvin P.S obviously feminism isn't a religion, I exaggerate, but it is more religion like than ever.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Why does modern Western Feminism and Veganism are horrifyingly similar to religions? ( Part 2: Veganism myths)

Disclaimer



Let's start by making this clear: I am not trying to generalise my opinion on every Feminist or Vegan, like in every group, not everyone fits in every descriptions. What I will be talking about are the movements loudest arguments and claims, and like most people that shout stuff instead of talking it up, it turns out to be bullshit.
If you can't handle people having either unpopular opinions, or simply opinions that you disagree with, then stop using the internet, you will either get nose bleeds from the unbelievable stupidity and misinformation out here, or headaches, from the well made, verified, confusingly smart, thoughts of geniuses that sparkle in some obscure youtube channel, or intellectually challenging article. More than four syllables per word and two pages? Meh, not worth reading right? You should read Twillight incredibly original plot instead ( will the underage teenager choose the pedo barechested long-haired first nation werewolf or the two hundred years old pedo-vampire with sparkling dandruff ? What a compelling love triangle!)  , it's only 500 pages! If fiction is not your thing then why not watch Spirit Science videos on youtube? You will learn hardcore facts like that there is brass and mica on the moon because spiritual zulu alien gods! So obvious (and also, space jews, obviously.)! Here is a link to Armoured Skeptic video about this, no way i am linking the original video, it's mind numbing and right down crazy, have fun with this one instead: The Moon is Fake I Guess.  Anyway, you get the point, if you are butthurt and doesn't want to debate at all, avoid any comment section or forum, you will start or strenghten a sterile debate about stuff that have nothing to do with the context­. I love the internet.

Veganist pseudo-science

Let's get it out: there is little to no scientific evidence pointing out that a balanced diet including red meat is bad for your health( quite the opposite in fact) and little to no evidence that a vegan diet is good for your health. Here is an article debunking many claims of scientific superiority of the vegan diet : 5 Reasons Why Vegan Diets May be a Bad Idea ( relative to your health). Long story short, the article points out the inaccuracies and straight up lies of the vegan propaganda ( with good evidence to back it up). One of the point of the article is that there is no right way to eat, if it works for you and you say you are fine, then please continue if that's what you want to do. But don't pretend that there is a mountain of evidence suggesting your diet is health-wise better, because there isn't. And if you only are a Vegan because you thought those health claims were right, you should at least reconsider. Also remember that if many people say that they feel great with the vegan lifestyle, it could be because vegan diets is not only about removing meat and animal produce of your meals, it's also about others habits, that are already proven to be good for your health: eating less processed foods, less sweets, exercising more, stop smoking and more. Counfonders. Also people saying how the diet is affecting them is annecdotal evidence that is not science.


Environnmental paranoia

Now that we are not talking about the health arguments for veganism what is left? The ethical and political arguments. Let's start by the latter, easier to refute. A lot of vegans like to say that if all of us became vegan  the environnment would get better. ''we don't need animal products anyway'' say the vegan activists... Sorry to disappoint you, but even if we assume that there is an non-animal based equivalent to everything we make from animal products (which is factually false, we use animals for adhesives to life saving drugs ), There would still be a hell lot of environnmental consequences from a worldwide  vegan lifestyle. Let's start with a small claim: ''Farm animals, especially cows and porks are the first contributor to greenhouse gasses because of methane emission, therefore not breeding farm animals would reduce drastically greenhouse gasses production''.  That statement is right, but why do farm animals produces greenhouses gasses in the first place? Many assume that's it's neccessary, and just part of their diggestive system to expulse large amounts of methane, but the reality is different: malnutrition cause farm animals to produce large quantities of greenhouse gasses, not the breeding itself. So megafarms are to blame because they feed the cattle with difficult to digest, not very nutritious cereals, instead of pasture. And unlike what many vegans believe, most people are against farm factories, they  are terrible both for the product quality and the animals well-being. Some people, like myself, advocates for higher ressource efficient meat, like insects ( that need less ressouces and produce less pollution for the same amount of meat and proteins), and an overall reduction of our meat consumption, because in our mostly sedentary societies, we don't need as much meat to be healthy and get our necessary intake of nutrients that we can't take from plants (refer to the article from before to know which nutrients and why). Also remember that vegan diet imply a diverse diet, with lot of legumes and nuts, crops that take ressouces and soil in particular climates to grow, I couldn't find details on how to grow common legumes and nuts ( and I am so curious to know!), but some of them requires specific climates and soil types, unlike animal breeding, that can be done almost anywhere. Sure, you can say that with greenhouses we can grow most crops anywhere, but greenhouses are costy, and need controlled environnments that have high energy cost, that have consequences of their own on the environnment. Bottom line? Diminishing agricultural pollution require a combination of consumers choices, agriculturals practices, and societal choices like electric cars and public transportation, not to ban animal breeding entirely, not all animals are breed for their meat, eggs or milk. There is many people who explain those political arguments way better than me, and I hope you will do some research and fact-checking on both side of the argument.

Positively biased premises

Now I'll dwelve into the hardest to debate arguments of vegans, not because those are better arguments, far from it, but because they rely entirely on premises that people typically have positive biases for. The ethical arguments. Most vegans say they became vegans because of this type of argument. So what are those premises I am talking about? Well the core premise is the same as any  equal rights movement: that the group they are defending, animals, should, and have to, be equal to another group in society, in this case, humans. Already, most people are positively biased to agree with that statement, because for most people equality= just and fair and everyone want that right? Well, if you read my article Equality Versus Equity Or When Justice Prevails you understand that this is a misunderstanding, we doesn't need to treat animals equally to treat animals fairly, with equity. My stance on the subject agree with most concerns vegans have about animal lives, we just don't agree at all on how to adress the matter. What vegans want is to abolish any use, exploitation of animals live, from meat, to wool, not forgetting milk and eggs. Most of them would agree with the misleading statement ''meat is murder''  because of that premise. Vegans points out farm factories and malpractices of the food industry as evidence of animal abuse, and not many people would argue that those practices are acceptable, for example: having threadmills with saws on the side to decapitate chickens is far from an acceptable practice... The food industry practices are, indeed, appalling. Vegans think the solution is abolition, and shun people who root for better practices instead, arguing that ''it still kill and exploit animals''.  I completely disagree. My stance is strangely similar to native americans stance on animal life: all animals deserve respect [EDIT 18-03-2016:And yes, some rights] , but aren't equal to us. I think that giving animal a good life, and killing them in the most humane way possible ( yes I know vegans hate when people say that, but remember, I don't agree with the premise of vegans, in my perspective, killing animals is justified sometime) while at the same time making sure we don't kill animals for leisure  and other appaling reasons can ensure that animals are treated fairly. Another vegan premise is : all animals are oppressed. Again, I don't believe that statement, while it's true that our existence endangers overall the animal kingdom, we also contributed to their well being. One controversed example is lab animals. Vegans despite the use of animal for the pursuit of knowledge, labelling it as torture and unneccessary. But think of why we use animals in lab, for exemple in drug research. It is easier to get data in a controlled environnment with mice than to recreate that with humans, also we use labs animals... to study animals! To understand animal behavior, lab studies are invaluable! And the results! Some discoveries help everyone, animals included. Finding a cure for HIV for exemple, would also profit to apes who actually struggle with the simian version of it. However, laboratories must have boundaries, so of course they can't do anything they want, mutilating lab animals  is already shun by the scientific community.[Edit 22-02-2016 Also animals adapt to environnmental changes caused by humans, sure a lot of species are dying, but that happens everytime the climate drastically change, not just this time. Evolution ''accelerates'' when climate changes hit the door, so only the strongest, most adapted will survive. The difference here is that we fear that we will not survive. Because I'm sure that life on earth would still exist if humankind disappeared, we are not special snowflakes on whom every living being life depend on, we are intelligent morons who act on their feelings and instincts despite being able to use reason and logic. ]
So bottom line? Animals deserve respect, respect of their lives and to be kill humanely, and they need to be treated with equity, not equality. Actual veganism is more like a religion, because if you don't agree with the premises, they don't care what you have to say, they don't  like to challenge or prove those claims, which is too bad really. - KeLvin




Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Why does modern Western Feminism and Veganism are horrifyingly similar to religions? ( Part 1: Feminism myths)

Disclaimer



Let's start by making this clear: I am not trying to generalise my opinion on every Feminist or Vegan, like in every group, not everyone fits in every descriptions. What I will be talking about are the movements loudest arguments and claims, and like most people that shout stuff instead of talking it up, it turns out to be bullshit.
If you can't handle people having either unpopular opinions, or simply opinions that you disagree with, then stop using the internet, you will either get nose bleeds from the unbelievable stupidity and misinformation out here, or headaches, from the well made, verified, confusingly smart, thoughts of geniuses that sparkle in some obscure youtube channel, or intellectually challenging article. More than four syllables per word and two pages? Meh, not worth reading right? You should read Twillight incredibly original plot instead ( will the underage teenager will choose the pedo barechested long-haired first nation werewolf or the two hundred years old pedo vampire with sparkling dandruff? What a compelling love triangle!)  , it's only 500 pages! If fiction is not your thing then why not watch Spirit Science videos on youtube? You will learn hardcore facts like that there is brass and mica on the moon because spiritual zulu alien gods! So obvious (and also, space jews, obviously.)! here is a link to Armoured Skeptic video about this, no way i am linking the original video, it's mind numbing and right down crazy, have fun with this one instead: The Moon is Fake I Guess.  Anyway, you get the point, if you are butthurt and doesn't want to debate at all, avoid any comment section or forum, you will start or strenghten a sterile debate about stuff that have nothing to do with the context­. I love the internet.


Ideologies turning into beliefs


Now that every one left to watch the video in the disclaimer i'll explain my point before the angry feminists and vegans come back to spread even more bullshit. So why do I say that ideologies are turning into beliefs? Because modern western feminism and veganism doesn't seem to care that much anymore about equal rights (respectively for women and animals), and would rather cater to some premises (basic believes that have to be accepted to either create knowledge, like mathematical axioms, or a core belief necessary for the ideology arguments to make sense for you, if you don't think animals are equal to human, you can't agree with arguments dependant on that core belief) rather than thoughtful arguments. First let's talk feminism. Feminism is an ideology, that like every other human rights activists, like black rights movements or LGBT rights activism have for ultimate goal and basic premise that the group they are defending ( in this case women) should and have to be equal to another(s) group(s) generally an opposite, either it be gender (men), ethnicity (white skin), religion (christians), sexual orientation ( heterosexuals) or anything else, the end goal is the same: equal rights and representation by the laws. This seemingly simple and reasonable guideline seem to have slip out of the mind of current feminism who rather either argue that they still don't have rights/laws that they already have/are already enforced, ( like sexual harassments laws, who already exists, no need for women specific harassments laws.) or go on crazy crusades on either pointless stuff, like manspreading ( men opening their leg in public apparently are priviliged offensive mysoginists) and street ''harassment''. Spoiler: not actual harassment. They meant that even one look, not staring, from a random dude constitute harassment, that one person telling a woman a compliment like: ''you are beautiful'', ''you are pretty'' or ''I like your hair/clothes'' by passing next to them is offensive is a ridiculous exageration of an actual reality ( here is a witty video by Tara Babcock drawing the line of reason for you) . Sexual harassment happens, and it's terrible, but it can happen anywhere, from the street to your workplace and generally have to be repetitive, hence the word harassment (implying more than one occurence usually) and this is why we mainly talk about workplace sexual harassment:Free dictionary.comOntario Human Rights Commision (Canadian)RAINN Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (american organisation).

 Feminists also get mad about an inexistant occidental ''rape culture'' ( can't even SAY that , culture is about group of people, not things exemples, the Greek culture, the American culture, the geek [sub]culture, the inmates [sub]culture, the hells angel [sub]culture....) and an eye rolling ''patriarchy'' that apparently plague our society, and oppress women and women only. Oh and don't forget to mix in other movements like atheism+ and appeal to minorities within the minorities and then pretend that all the issues both of you are facing come from the reasons your specific group  is supposedly (remember: citation needed, not only for me, the ''mysoginist opposition'' but from you too feminists... ) oppressed. Yes, there is feminists out here who love to point out ''white priviliged cisgender rich straight men'' when saying that black women get double oppressed because they are in two minorities at once (don't even get them to think of a poor black atheist lesbian women, they will have an heart attack from the oppression olympics ) , but rarely do they aknowledge that a white ''priviliged'' ( remember kids, feminists says that women are S-Y-S-T-E-M-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y oppressed in western societies! So priviliged  women? that's impossible!) cisgender straight rich women can oppress other women, of any skin complexion as much as any white man. Lumping together every civil rights movements reduce the importance of each movement by blurring the line between the cause and effect of their specific inequalities. By spreading myths such as ''Rape culture '' that '' Is real ''and it ''trivialize rape'', those feminists actually worsen sexism by reinforcing the stereotypes that women are all special snowflakes, that can't never lie about rape, that always understand what rape means and are always the victims, no matter  the actual facts that people point out, they are the damsels in distress, always(this is confirmation bias, also known as the conspiracy theory ''are you in the conspiracy?'' ask the theorist. If you answer yes , you are confirming that theorist beliefs, but if you answer no, you are still confirming it, because you are obviously lying, hidding the truth, and since everyone is in the conspiracy it's systematical! See the fallacy here?). Thus, they need Feminists to ''open their minds/eyes'' about the ''truth'' on ''rape culture'' and that damn ''patriarchy'' (A.K.A. lies, and bullshit. Notice that the wording sound kinda religious already).

 If you checked that first link from before  and that other link you probably noticed that those are both articles from the Time, the second article being a direct response to the first one. The first article is from Caroline Kitchens , she consider herself a feminist, had studied both history and political science and currently work for the American Enterprise Institute a self-described community of scholars , that shares a belief for free enterprise. They say they are a non-profit, non partisan research oriented organisation. Seems legit to me( here a response video from them to the infamous street harassment video, debunking it entirely. I even recognised an actor!) . I don't agree necessary with all they can say, but their research and work ethics seems to be solid. So this lady wrote an article for the Time explaining why she thinks rape culture isn't a real thing over here in north america, she made interesting points and either cited her sources, or made obvious great arguments against the concept of ''american rape culture'' while denouncing feminist censorship.  

The second article is from Zerlina Maxwell ( second source here) a feminist ''political analyst'', a writer for ESSENCE magazine ( a typical ''chick'' magazine, very ''girly'' stuff. Note the air quotes people) and fervent defender of the rape culture theory. Interestingly, her Tumblr bio page show her at FOX news ( if you can call right-wing propaganda, news that is) , and imply that she is a  weekly guest there! Her formation include a J.D ( Doctor of Jurisprudence degree A.K.A law school degree) and a bachelor degree in international relations, two domains of studies that doesn't have much to do with women rights activism, but I digress, let's talk about her arguments. Miss Maxwell start really bad with a personnal experience as her first argument. Don't misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong telling a personnal story to strenghthen  your arguments, if that story is not the evidence itself for one of your arguments. And that's exactly what she is doing. She said that SHE had a bad experience after her boyfriend raped her while she choose to denounce him to the autorities ( well it's implied that's what she is talking about, because she only say those were ''well-meaning people'' close to her, so I assume she is talking friends, family and police officers, but even if i'm wrong my argument here still holds up), therefore because of HER perception of the reality ALL culture is guilty of trivializing rape.Though her experience can also lead to the interpretation that when someone accuse someone else of rape people ask about the circumstances Because A: they could be skeptical, rape have to be proven, like any other crime B: they could be curious to understand what caused that rape, or what it was and C: because authorities need to ask some of those difficult questions anyway to make a case for you, might as well start early. She then proceed to attack Miss Kitchens credibility, saying that's she is downplaying the serious issue that rape is. What is Miss Maxwell supporting evidence that would show with reasonable doubt that Miss Kitchens is underestimating the issue? 

Her evidence is a 2011New York Times article explaining the results of a governemental survey on rape. The first half of the article is quite sketchy about the methodology, the '' 1 in 5 American women  surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner.'' is thrown around, but what was the actual definition of rape in that study, and what was the actual questions asked? First, know it was a telephone survey (thus naturally having a way higher error probability, because of the fact a telephonist is asking questions about an highly emotionally charged subject, and others similar reasons that bias the results) of a nationally representative sample of 16, 507 adults. Notice it's written adults, not women, meaning half of them were men. And with a sample of only 8000 women that study become even less representative ( big claims, requires big samples)  They say the surveyors gave informations ''on types of aggression not previously nationally surveyed, like sexual violence, psychological aggression, coercion and control of reproductive and sexual health.'' They also gathered physical and mental health informations on those self declared violence survivors.  They say some others interresting stuff, but the best part is this : ''The researchers defined rape as completed forced penetration, forced penetration facilitated by drugs or alcohol, or attempted forced penetration.

By that definition, one percent of women surveyed reported being raped in the previous year, a figure that suggests that 1.3 million American women annually may be victims of rape or attempted rape.'' Ok people, so how many were actually raped, or were victim of an attempted rape? 1 percent of the surveyed, not 1 in 5( 1 percent of 8000? 80 women, that's way too little of a sample) . Sorry Zelina Maxwell, but your inability to admit that you only used the numbers that you liked, is really outrageous for me. It's such an unintellectual way to argue.  The rest of the article talks about estimates made on that extremely small sample, and previous estimates of the same surveys, from past years, that remember,the surveyors themselves admits wasn't enough inclusive before anyway...  

Miss Maxwell isn't done not doing thoroughly her research though since she is spreading even more misinformation, and from a source I cited in this article ( thus I am not sure of the credibility of the whole organization now) sharing this article from RAINN with this graph in it. 

Absolute bullshit, they litterally created false statistics and circle jerked about how terrible they are... 

Before panicking, think about what it actually says and where the data came from. The data come from the same series of surveys  (this link show the references, look at number 1...)  from before and like I said they are of questionnable fiability, even  if those specifics ones explain beforehand that there was a paper survey to lead ( understand, to sort people) to the telephonic interviews and had a larger original sample, they are still questionnable. They also use other kind of data from the department of Justice and the FBI. So even if we take the far-fetched stance that that ''analysis'' is accurate, it still doesn't confirm their opinion on the matter. Even if people aren't reporting rapes as much as they should, it doesn't mean that all those accused are culprits or that there is enough evidence to make a case against them ( especially true in very old cases), thus explaining why those numbers could make actual sense. If they were not as flawed as they are. The actual data, from here, shows encouragings results. Between 2002 and 2011 the rape/sexual assault victim number in U.S. dropped from  349, 810  to 243,800, domestic violence also dropped by 20% and so on. the statistic they are using, the ''only 46% of rapes are reported'' came from table 7  of that PDF, not only reading that table but the accompanying text we clearly understand that those are the changes in the number of reported crimes [ Edit 08-02-2016: and even the graph who suggest actual non reported cases isn't anything to jump for, because rape non reports are comparable to those of other crimes...]  (and it's 49.9%, not 46%... meaning less rapes were reported, not that only 46% of rapes were reported), but we also get by  checking what table 8 have to say that to categorise as a ''violent victimization'' being reported :
''Police could be notified about a victimization by the victim,
a third party  (including witnesses, other victims, household
members, or other officials, such as school officials or
workplace managers), or police already at the scene of the
incident. Police notification may occur during or immediately
following a criminal incident or at a later date.'' That statement does say how reports are determined and calculated upon, but what about how they mysteriously know how many people don't report crimes? How possibly could they know that? Here waht i found the closest to how they ''determine'' it (spoilers: it doesn't explain), as explain in the methodology section:''The victimization weights used in this analysis account for the
number of persons present during an incident and for repeat
victims of series incidents[Multiple occurences of the same crime, exemple multiple rapes by an abusive husband for numerous years]. The weight counts series incidents
as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim,
up to a maximum of ten incidents'' In English, this sciency mumbo-jumbo simply mean: any person present during a crime is counted in for the victim weight, if they are victim of more than one crime, even in the same category, they are counted twice or more. This analysis also count each known incident of a series of a crime, as the actual number of incidents reported by the victims, with a capped number of ten by victim.( it is not specified what specific persons are count, so it's safe to assume that they counted both victims, suspects, and witness as ''persons present during an incident''. pretty loose). [Edit 04-02-2016: I was looking more into the AEI youtube channel and they made a video referencing that study in 2014 here is the link][Edit 08-02-2016: I also took the time to debunk the last statement ''3% (or  2% dependent of which graph you looked at) of rapists go to jail'' the info came from this study, and nowhere does it says that. The closest thing I could find was that of the 89% of convicted incarcerated rapists, 2% go to jail... but that the other 84% go to prison. If you are not aware a jail is like your local sheriff prison, it's mainly use for those waiting trial. ''what about the other 11%?'' you may ask. Well of the 11% of convicted non incarcerated rapists 8% are on probation and 3% got another sentence.]So now you get my point: big claims, need big evidence, and we don't have that at all here.  A lot of feminists would rather believe false information or straight up lies like the previous graph, instead of doing their own research to find out the truth. That's why feminism is becoming a belief system rather than a thought ideology, they doesn't think rationally about the subjects in debate, they use the confirmation bias, conspiracy theory, and skewed statistics to fit their wims and you can't have an argument with them if you don't believe their new premisse: rape culture and patriarchy is real, women are systematically oppressed in western societies. Bullshit. Want to know were there could really be an actual so-called rape culture and patriarchy? Saudi Arabia, and maybe also India for exemples. Those countries may  actually had trivialized rape, and are obviously ( to me, I could be wrong, don't know for sure)  male exclusively politicaly controlled. Feminist movements also make perfect sense here, since women there actually (maybe) don't have equal rights, and are actually (maybe) sytematically oppressed. This went for way too long so i'm stopping for now, next time i'll explain why vegans face similar ideological issues. Please comment and stay tuned for more content! Bye bye -KeLvin