My Twitter posts

Saturday, March 26, 2016

My Philosophy essay on feminism. Hint on my position: Politicaly incorrect. [FRENCH]

Hello everyone! Today I want to share my essay with you, it's on feminism. And French. I'll translate later, maybe. See you next time! -KeLvin


Dans « le libre march√© des id√©es » certaines id√©es ont d√©finitivement le vent en poupe, mais contrairement au march√© des produits, les id√©es impopulaires ne sont pas seulement ignor√©es, mais activement oppos√©es et m√©pris√©es, le politiquement correct est donc la norme. La notion populaire que « Si vous croyez en l’√©galit√© [des genres], vous √™tes donc un f√©ministe », est un excellent exemple d’une id√©e populaire o√Ļ l’opposition est vue comme √©tant politiquement incorrecte. Toutefois, est-ce vraiment si scandaleux de se dire pour l’√©galit√© des genres sans se d√©clarer √©galement f√©ministe ?  Ma position est politiquement incorrecte : non. J’expliquerais toutefois pourquoi le f√©minisme est plus que cette phrase simpliste, car le f√©minisme tente d’expliquer le sexisme par des th√©ories auxquelles quelqu’un pour l’√©galit√© pourrait √™tre en d√©saccord ; car le f√©minisme a des conceptions simplistes et in√©galitaires de ce qu’est l’√©galit√© ; et, car les contre-arguments et arguments soulev√©s par les f√©ministes sont des sophismes empreints de raisonnement circulaire, de biais de confirmation et d’inversion du fardeau de la preuve.

Tout d’abord, le f√©minisme, en tant qu’id√©ologie, est bien plus que la croyance que les hommes et les femmes devraient √™tre √©gaux. Les f√©ministes avancent aussi quelles sont les causes de ces in√©galit√©s, ce qui influence leur r√©solution. Parmi les th√©ories f√©ministes on retrouve :  la culture du viol, la misogynie internalis√©e, l’intersectionnalit√© (anglicisme de intersectionnality) et, bien s√Ľr, la pierre angulaire des th√©ories f√©ministes, le patriarcat. Ces diff√©rentes th√©ories avancent toutes des explications hypoth√©tiques sur les causes des in√©galit√©s homme-femme. Le patriarcat, leur th√©orie f√©tiche, avance l’id√©e que nous vivons dans une soci√©t√© dirig√©e par des hommes, pour les hommes, o√Ļ tout, y compris la culture (d’o√Ļ le concept de culture du viol) et les femmes elles-m√™mes (misogynie internalis√©e) renforce l’oppression des femmes et d’autres groupes jug√©s opprim√©s (d’o√Ļ la n√©cessit√© pour de nombreux et nombreuses f√©ministes d’√™tre « intersectionnel » et de militer pour d’autres groupes, comme les minorit√©s ethniques ou la communaut√© LGBT). Pour les f√©ministes, ces th√©ories sont factuelles et constamment renforc√©es par de nombreuses √©tudes et « faits » comme l’iniquit√© salariale, des chiffres sur le viol qui alarment et des chiffres d√©montrant que la parit√© n’est pas atteinte. Malheureusement pour eux, leurs donn√©es, √©tudes et « faits » sont constamment critiqu√©s pour leur manque de pr√©cision et de validit√© scientifique. Beaucoup les accusent m√™me de propagande.   Les chiffres concernant l’iniquit√© salariale, par exemple, ont depuis longtemps √©t√© discr√©dit√©s comme n’√©tant pas repr√©sentatifs, car ceux-ci ne font que comparer les revenus annuels moyens des hommes et des femmes sans prendre en compte les diff√©rences d’emploi, d’exp√©rience, de temps travaill√© et d’autres variables importantes comme les heures suppl√©mentaires et les bonus[1]. Les chiffres sur le viol souffrent du m√™me probl√®me[2]. Les preuves pour leurs diff√©rentes th√©ories √©tant insuffisantes pour affirmer qu’elles sont vraies, on pourrait s’attendre √† ce que personne n’y croit avant d’avoir suffisamment de preuves de qualit√©, un peu comme personne n’oserait croire aux licornes sans de solides preuves. Ce n’est toutefois pas cette simple logique qui emp√™che les f√©ministes d’encourager ou de faire des recherches visant √† confirmer leurs conceptions pr√©con√ßues, en d√©pit de la m√©thodologie scientifique, en assumant des conclusions (logique circulaire) comme pr√©misses se renfor√ßant d’elles-m√™mes.  Quand des chercheurs font des recherches avec une vision f√©ministe (donc biais√©e d√®s le d√©part) et veuillent trouver des liens de corr√©lation (et les d√©clarer des liens de causalit√©) entre des choses n’ayant aucun lien avec le genre et le genre, il n’est pas √©tonnant que l’on se retrouve avec des √©tudes ridicules, comme, par exemple, ces chercheurs, qui sont arriv√©s √† la conclusion que la fonte des glaciers est   sexiste ![3]

Si ce genre d’absurdit√© n’√©tait pas suffisante pour d√©montrer que le f√©minisme est bien plus que la d√©finition qu’en fait le dictionnaire[4], la conception f√©ministe de ce que devrait √™tre l’√©galit√© n’est pas √©galitaire, mais tout le contraire. J’ai pr√©c√©demment mentionn√© que les f√©ministes pointent souvent le fait que la soci√©t√© n’est pas paritaire, et donc, en suivant leur logique, pas √©galitaire. Toutefois, la parit√© n’est pas l’√©galit√©, et viser la parit√©, c’est, en r√©alit√©, militer pour diff√©rentes in√©galit√©s. La plupart des gens qui croient en l’√©galit√© des sexes, y compris, g√©n√©ralement, les f√©ministes, sont d’accord sur l’id√©e que l’√©galit√© des chances est la vraie √©galit√©. Malgr√© des lois pour cette √©galit√© des chances, les f√©ministes sont convaincus par leur th√©ories sur le patriarcat et leur observation que malgr√© ces lois, la soci√©t√© n’est pas paritaire, que ces lois ne fonctionnent pas. Ils et elles pensent que des quotas, des mesures « d’affirmation positives » et des « safe spaces » (espaces prot√©g√©s en anglais) seraient plus efficaces que ces lois anti-discrimination pour atteindre l’√©galit√© par la parit√©. Ces mesures en elles-m√™mes sont discriminatoires, et m√™me, dans le cas des                 « safe spaces » de la s√©gr√©gation.  D’abord, les quotas sont une absurde forme de discrimination positive envers les femmes et n√©gative envers les hommes. Que quelqu’un obtienne des avantages sociaux sur la base de son genre (ou ethnie ou orientation sexuelle) plut√īt que ses comp√©tences, ou sa valeur en tant qu’individu, est en soit sexiste, peu importe quel genre est favoris√© par ces mesures. Je n’utilise pas la d√©finition sociologique du sexisme que les f√©ministes appr√©cient, car cette d√©finition n’a aucune base solide pour constituer une d√©finition universelle[5].  Les mesures « d’affirmation positive » qui comprennent les quotas, sont d√©finis par leur caract√®re discriminatoire « positif ». Les  « safe spaces » cette notion originaire du monde f√©ministe anglophone, est carr√©ment la d√©finition de s√©gr√©gation[6]. Ces « espaces prot√©g√©s » consistent en des lieux publics r√©serv√©s aux femmes ( ou d’autres groupes), o√Ļ les hommes sont exclus, sous pr√©texte que cela                      « les prot√®ge de l’oppresseur ». Je suis certain que c’est exactement ce que se disaient les noirs dans les ann√©es 50 aux √Čtats-Unis… Pourquoi la parit√© n’est pas l’√©galit√© ? J’ai la parfaite analogie : Si je lance 100 fois une pi√®ce de monnaie et que j’obtiens 60 piles et 40 faces, je ne peux croire que le r√©sultat est in√©gal, car non-paritaire, puis     que la probabilit√©, elle, donne l’√©galit√© des chances autant au c√īt√© pile, qu’au c√īt√© face. Il n’est que normal que cette √©galit√© des chances ne signifie pas √©galit√© des r√©sultats, nous ne vivons pas dans un monde o√Ļ les r√©sultats pr√©dits se r√©alisent toujours. Exiger des quotas bas√©s sur le genre est aussi absurde que de demander √† une pi√®ce de monnaie lanc√©e 100 fois d’avoir 50 c√īt√© pile et 50 cot√© faces.
Enfin, les contre-arguments et arguments f√©ministes, sont, tr√®s, tr√®s souvent, des sophismes. Un fr√©quent contre-argument √† mon premier argument, que leurs th√©ories sont des th√©ories, est que, en tant qu’homme blanc pr√©sum√© h√©t√©rosexuel, je suis aveugle √† mon « privil√®ge » et donc que mes arguments sont invalides, car, de toute fa√ßon, en tant qu’homme, j’ai int√©r√™t √† maintenir le patriarcat et la culture du viol (ce dernier point suppose que les hommes sont g√©n√©ralement en faveur ou indiff√©rents au viol et autre harc√®lement ou violence sexuelle, ce qui est une √©norme g√©n√©ralisation). Ce type d’argument appartient √† une cat√©gorie de sophismes surnomm√© « bulverism » en anglais, ce sophisme √©tant, plus pr√©cis√©ment, un appel √† l’identit√©. Il n’est peut-√™tre pas √©vident de voir le sophisme dans un appel √† l’identit√©, la pseudo-logique derri√®re le raisonnement √©tant plut√īt convaincante, toutefois, une fois compar√© √† son cousin, l’appel √† la profession, le sophisme se d√©voile de lui-m√™me.   Un bon exemple d’appel √† la profession est si vous allez acheter un produit, comme une voiture, et que vous discr√©ditez les arguments de vente du vendeur car celui-ci a un int√©r√™t √† ce que vous achetiez son produit. Cela est un sophisme, car m√™me si le vendeur a un int√©r√™t personnel dans la vente, cela ne signifie pas que ses arguments sont erron√©s. Un vendeur de voiture ne mentira pas n√©cessairement sur les caract√©ristiques de la voiture qu’il juge int√©ressantes √† vous vendre. Cette m√™me logique s’applique √† l’appel √† l’identit√©. Ce n’est pas parce que je suis un homme, et que, selon les f√©ministes, j’ai un int√©r√™t √† m’opposer √† leurs th√©ories, que la valeur intrins√®que de mes arguments est nulle.  Un autre contre-argument soulev√© par des f√©ministes est que c’est √† l’opposition de prouver que le patriarcat et la culture du viol n’existe pas, que c’est √† moi d’amener des preuves contres leurs th√©ories, que je ne peux les critiquer sans preuves. Premi√®rement, personne n’a √† produire de contenu pour critiquer celui des autres, c’est comme si quelqu’un disait que l’on ne peut critiquer un livre si on n’a pas √©crit un livre, c’est ridicule. Ensuite, cela est √©galement un sophisme, connu sous le nom de passer le fardeau de la preuve.   En science et en philosophie, le fardeau de la preuve est l’id√©e que c’est √† celui qui affirme l’existence de quelque chose de prouver ses dires, pas √† ses d√©tracteurs. Exiger de ma part de fournir des preuves de la non-existence d’une chose me garantit de perdre l’argument, puisqu’il est impossible de prouver la non-existence de quelque chose. C’est pour cela qu’il est impossible de prouver que Dieu, les licornes ou les reptiliens n’existent pas : on ne peut d√©montrer l’absence que par l’absence de preuves. Toutefois, cela ne veut pas dire, qu’au final, ces choses n’existent pas, mais tout simplement, qu’en attendant des preuves suffisantes, la position raisonnable est de supposer que ces choses n’existent pas. Et c’est exactement pour √ßa que je ne crois pas au patriarcat et √† la culture du viol. C’est aussi pourquoi on ne devrait pas ostraciser ceux qui refusent d’y croire. Ma derni√®re r√©futation porte sur l’argument le plus utilis√© par les f√©ministes : les femmes ont historiquement √©t√© opprim√©es, elles le sont donc encore aujourd’hui.  Ce type d’argument, est, encore une fois, un sophisme. Il s’agit l√† d’un sophisme g√©n√©tique.  Le sophisme g√©n√©tique est lorsque quelqu’un pr√©sume que la signification d’origine d’un mot, de quelqu’un ou d’une chose n’as pas chang√©, qu’elle est rest√©e la m√™me, malgr√© un changement de contexte ou de connotation. Par exemple, croire que le terme « gay » qui avait autrefois une connotation p√©jorative est toujours p√©joratif de nos jours serait absurde, le terme ayant de toute √©vidence chang√© sa signification. Ainsi, affirmer que puisqu’avant les femmes n’avaient pas les m√™mes droits que les hommes est une preuve qu’aujourd’hui encore les femmes dans les pays d√©velopp√©s sont opprim√©es est un sophisme g√©n√©tique. La vision que la soci√©t√© se fait de la femme ayant chang√©e √©norm√©ment ces derni√®res d√©cennies, l’existence m√™me du mouvement f√©ministe illustrant tr√®s bien ce changement d’attitude. C’est aussi ce type de sophisme qu’utilisent les f√©ministes quand ils r√©f√®rent les gens √† la d√©finition du dictionnaire pour d√©finir le f√©minisme.

En conclusion, il semblerait bien que le mouvement f√©ministe, en tentant d’expliquer les in√©galit√©s hommes-femmes par des th√©ories douteuses, ne soit pas que pour l’√©galit√©. Leurs th√©ories leur donnent aussi des pistes de solutions, ces solutions √©tant souvent discriminatoires, voir m√™me de la s√©gr√©gation. Et tout cela pour atteindre la parit√©, que les f√©ministes consid√®rent comme la seule vraie √©galit√© que l’on peut atteindre, car m√™me si on a l’√©galit√© des chances, si cette √©galit√© ne se traduit pas par du 50-50, c’est un probl√®me pour les f√©ministes. Tant pis s’ils doivent discriminer, et donc augmenter les in√©galit√©s, pour atteindre cet objectif. Les contre-arguments et arguments apport√©s par les f√©ministes se trouvent √† √™tre des sophismes, certains plus subtils, comme le sophisme g√©n√©tique et l’appel √† l’identit√©, d’autres √©vident, comme de passer le fardeau de la preuve. Certains pourrait m’accuser, dans cette dissertation, d’avoir fait un √©pouvantail (straw man) de la position des f√©ministes. Ce n’est pas le cas. Je me suis attaqu√© aux plus gros arguments du f√©minisme, √† ses fondements actuels. On pourrait dire que les positions que j’ai vis√©es ne sont pas celles « des vrais f√©ministes », mais cela est comme dire que je ne suis pas un « vrai canadien » parce-que je n'aime pas le sirop d’√©rable, un autre sophisme. De plus, ma question initiale, « Doit-on √™tre f√©ministe pour √™tre pour l’√©galit√© entre les sexes », se r√©pond d’elle-m√™me, car n’est-il pas inad√©quat de cat√©goriser les positions de quelqu’un dans des cases id√©ologiques ? Suis-je un n√©olib√©ral parce-que je crois en la responsabilit√© individuelle et les droits et libert√©s individuelles ? Non, car le n√©olib√©ralisme est bien plus que cela.  La m√™me conclusion s’applique au f√©minisme. Il faudrait peut-√™tre cesser de cat√©goriser ou ostraciser les id√©es des autres dans nos propres cases, les sophismes visant la personne √©tant, dans ce cas, bien trop tentants…



[1]Sommers H, Christina (2014). The gender wage gap uses bogus statistics Vidéo 4min 44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w&index=46&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd Consulté le 22 mars 2016
[2]Sommers H, Christina. (2015). Sexual assault in America: Do we know the true numbers? Vidéo 4min 49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNsJ1DhqQ- s&index=44&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd Consulté le 22 mars 2016
[3] Roy, Jessica (2016) Today’s New Sexist Thing: Glaciers En ligne. http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/even-glaciers-are-sexist.html Consult√© le 22 mars 2016
[4]Dictionnaire Larousse, féminisme En ligne, http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/f%C3%A9minisme/33213 Consulté le 22 mars 2016
[5] Devreux, Anne-Marie et Anne-Marie Daune-Richard (1992) « Rapports sociaux de sexe et conceptualisation sociologique » Recherches f√©ministes, vol. 5, n° 2, (1992), p. 7-30 Consult√© le 22 mars 2016
[6] Shulevitz, Judith (2015) In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas En ligne. Consulté le 22 mars 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Amway and Kyäni: When money got Theirway and you didn't see the fucKyäning scam


Amway and Ky√§ni: When money got Theirway and you didn't see the fucKy√§ning scam 


Have you ever been contacted by someone on Facebook that you didn't talk to for years, but seemed to have wanted to get back in touch? Saying that they had something great to show you, but that they couldn't tell you what it is? Maybe using some analogy, saying that is like ''explaining the color red to the blind '' ? Well, if so, you probably were duped into an Amway , Ky√§ni or another pyramidal scheme ''presentation meeting'' ( most of us call that kidnapping, but whatever). It happenned to me today. It's the second time someone try to indoctrinate me into believing this massive scam as a legit way to make a living. Not only those scams are barely legal, they are morally dubious and not a very effective way to make money, quite the opposite. The first time was with Amway recruiters, I wasn't 18 at the time, but they still tried to recruit me in advance. Yeah, my 17 self was also repulsed. I was living at my friend's appartment at the time while attending C√©gep ( Qu√©bec equivalent to college, it's between secondary school, our equivalent to high school, and university). He was in his twenties, so old enough for the scam. He unfortunately bought it all, he paid the expensive membership ( he didn't take the 67$ membership, he took an higher optional one, here is the page on Amway ''starter packs''), he  submitted to their selling quotas ( but really, buying quotas, since most sellers can't get to that quota by selling they start buying the stuff themselves to meet those quotas, the recruiters also tried to avoid the subject of those quotas... belittling their importance HMMMM... ) and their horrendous scheme, telling him that if he recruited enough people, and that those people recruited enough people themselves, and so on, he wouldn't need to sell stuff anymore, that the people below him in the pyramid would work for him, and earn money for him ( the same way he is now doing dirty work for those recruiters... the irony). Of course this is a scam. Maybe I was just 17 at the time, but I was not a complete moron. A charming couple in their mid fifties that say that they don't even need to work anymore and make a living out of it, and that if you work hard as they did, that you go to all those expensive seminars, buy their crappy CDs and books every month, that you pay for your annual membership, and harass all your friends, family members and long lost Facebook friends to the point that everyone hate you, you'll get rich enough to sit back and look at the money? Thank you, but I don't believe in naturopathy and homeopathy, so I’m not going to believe this nonsense. But my friend did. Which I found ridiculous, since he is VERY introvert, shy and socially anxious. He doesn't have many friends, relatives and acquaintances, and suck at persuasion, so who was he going to indoctrinate in his new cult? No one, of course. So he ended up spending more money than he was making, buying instead of selling (or recruiting). When I pointed that to him, he spitted out the propaganda they thrown at him. He said that he WILL make money, and this is just an investment in his ''IBO'' (short for Individual Business Owner, Yeah, this is  Amway propaganda buzzword). He said that buying the overpriced crap on their website was advantageous, since it is delivery (yeah to laziness!)  and he would buy it somewhere else anyway, and buying it on the site as a seller means he buy it at the distributor price (usually a few dollars under the way the already expensive retail price) so it's somehow worth it. ''It also help me get to the monthly quota'' (note: they don't call it a quota, but it is) ... Sigh.  So anyway, that was my first experience with this idiocy. It's not an actual pyramid scheme because they sell ''real products'' (if you count homeopathy, naturopathy and overpriced makeup and vitamins as ''products'‘) , but since the commission is ridiculously small, that the profit margin is ridiculously narrow and that there is high monthly quotas to respect, most sellers find the ''optional'' yet ''highly encouraged'' (read, ''socially coerced by the other cult members'') by their ''parent'' member, recruitment part, highly attractive... And so the scheme goes on. The ''parent'' member encourage the referral (my friend in this case) to become a parent himself, because as the ''grand-parent'' of their referral's referrals they earn a commission on their membership and sells... meaning that the higher your position in the pyramid is, the more money you make out of the referrals you get, and the more you get from those of them who are active sellers, recruiters or buyers. And, of course, if they are encouraging their referrals to recruit, it's because it's the most lucrative thing to do... for them, not their referrals. So only those who jumped on the band wagon early (and are good cult gurus) can actually expect to become rich out of it, the late adopters (or lazy, or those with poor social skills) get dust and debts. That's Amway, a billion-dollar business made on people hopes and dreams, exploiting the unemployed, the depressed, the socially anxious, the naive and the youth. Legal, but morally disgusting. If i wasn't such an honest person, I would probably start my own ''multi-level marketing'' (euphemism for pyramidal scheme scam) because it's so damn easy to manipulate people feelings with hope. So what about my second experience, you ask? The one I experienced this evening? Well, it all started as I described in the intro, a long lost acquaintance from secondary school contacted me and said he would like to see me. He asked for my address and said he as something great to show me. Curious as anyone would be, I asked what it was. He said ''it is like explaining the color red to the blind'' (funny anecdote: later on, before I discovered I was duped, I mentioned how I got there, someone asked me how we could describe the color red, claiming it's impossible, so when I said something like'' colors are visual cues that helps us categorise what we see, red being one of them'' they were quite impressed, and uncomfortable. They got owned before I even began deconstructing the scheme). So even more curious by this analogy I accepted to meet him, but he didn't tell me we were going somewhere else, so when he stopped at my apartment and I offered him to sit down so we could chat and he could show me the thing, he said that the thing was somewhere else. Ok, didn't expected that from someone trying to befriend me, but why not, it was intriguing after all. I get in the car and another guy that I knew from school was there. Surprised once again, but I didn't let it disturb me.  We did small talk and got to someone's place (not his place apparently). It was a neat and tidy house. Charming. Got in and a few women my age and another guy that I knew were there. We did small talk, avoiding the reason of our presence. I didn't like that. Something felt wrong. When another guy I didn't know at all arrived a bit later and they told the guy that was already inside when I got there to go downstairs I wondered what was happening. I asked why they sent him downstairs, but they kind of avoided giving me a straight answer, they just mocked him, in a semi inside joke way, like they all knew why they didn't want him here, but couldn't tell me yet (I now think it was because he isn't involved in their cult, good for him). At this point, because we were four guys and six girls (maybe five, can't remember that for sure), two of the guys, me and the guy I never saw before, not knowing what we were doing here, I began to think this was a trap, that I was duped. But I didn't think this was a pyramidal scheme. In fact, I thought this was a feminist brainwash session (since I am pretty loud about my opposition to feminism at my C√©gep) to convert me to feminism. I thought that because A: the women ''in the know'' outnumbered the men ''in the know'', B: the women seemed to have WAY more authority than the guys. and C: the guy that was in the car made bad rape and gay jokes and acted as a mangina to apologizes, it was fucking cringe worthy. So when I understood that it wasn't an intervention, I was relieved... to get very pissed off a few minutes later. When was the time for the reveal of, what the hell are we meeting up for, they beaten around the bush for WAYYYY to long, all laughing and making jokes. I wasn't laughing. I was getting annoyed by all this fuss to avoid the topic. So when the leading miss (I’ll call her the chief guru) started her propaganda piece with words like ''relational marketing'' and ''great opportunity'' and I noticed the products she just put on the table, I interrupted her and said: ''Sorry to interrupt, but let me guess what you were going to say, you were going to say that we need to pay for a membership to this company, sell a bunch of those things and recruit even more people to do what you are doing isn't it?'' '' she said '' Yes, so you heard of it?'' to which I responded '' Yes I already know what this is: a pyramidal scam''. They said it wasn't but politely let me speak my mind for a while and explain why it was a pyramidal scheme. They argued against it, obviously, saying that this is just like royalties and owning a franchise of a restaurant. I tried to explain the differences, but I kind of wasn't very good at it, so I asked if I could see the products, because I was sure, and turned out that I was right, that those were homeopathic bullshit. The first product that I looked at was Sunrise (the one on the left of that ''independent distributor'' webpage).

This is stewed fruits and juice, nothing else. 

This is just costly juice and stewed fruit. Seriously. I told them this isn't some sort of health potion, but just fruits, and they argued that it was still helpful or whatever. Sure, that's why there was no indication at all of what the product was on the packaging or what it does.  I had to look at the ingredients and the look of the packaging to understand what it is. Anyway, it IS harmless, and fruit so, yeah that may be fishy marketing, but still a little bit helpful, since it's just plain old juice. Too costly though, $50 for 30 oz? That is the most expensive juice I have ever seen. No wonder they masquerade it as homeopathic magical cure. Oh but not on itself, no, this is one of the three products that you must buy or else the efficiency is decreased... Talk about convenient 

This is a placebo. A fucking placebo.

This one, Sunset, (see what they did here? Sunrise... Sunset... Marketing.)  priced $43,95 the bottle, is the biggest scam out of these. It's a placebo. Yep. Nothing but fish gelatin, glycerin, water, and useless oils. See for yourself!
See? These are the ingredients of a placebo. They didn't believe me on that one, arguing that there is Omega-3 (Nope) and other useful nutrients (Nope)(note: this nutritional label was not on any of the products…) . They said ''What about the fish gelatin?''. They really don't know what gelatin is and where it come from isn't it? I may not be a fan of PETA, but they resume what gelatin is pretty neatly... So this ''fish gelatin'' is actually crap from a fish (Alaskan fish and Sockeye Salmon apparently). How cute. Of course this is harmless, it's like taking Jell-O pills, harmless, but also useless and REALLY expensive Jell-O pills to top it off... Anyway, on to the last product...

This is fruit juice (again) ... homeopathic fruit juice.

This product is called Nitro FX ($65,95) and has an even more expensive version of itself named Nitro Xtreme (For extreme pricing I guess, $79,95, that's insane! Remember that they want you to buy all three of these products), it's not only overpriced, as the other two, this is actually the one to have the power to convince the naturopathic crew over. Yep, another not very known plant/fruit that turn out to be a cash cow despite no conclusive evidence that it even remotely works. This time it has a cute name: Noni. I said that I doubted this plant extract has any known and proven medical uses, and asked if anyone did their research, they said they did, but of course they didn't do it the right way. I asked for scientific evidence. They shown me this website: Extenso.org. It's in French but don't worry the scientific articles cited for reference are in English (maybe that blocked them, after all they may not be bilingual as I am.). The site pride itself at being ''the Center of nutritional reference of the University of Montreal''. I doubt they are. Seems like any other homeopathic bullcrap website to me (it isn't after all, but it looks like one). And for those of you who wonders because they understand a few words of French: yes the title of this article: ''Le jus de noni : un rem√®de √† tous les maux'' translate to '' Noni juice: A cure to all ills''. Not a great start. But the article is actually very honest, because it admits that there is no conclusive research on humans and the only potent results were on lab animals, they found that Noni juice had an effect on cancer and stimulated the immune system. If you know anything about medicine or biology, you understand that this basically means it does nothing special, almost every fruit (hell anything acidic) does that. They also mention two other studies on rats, one on diabetes and one on tuberculosis, but since there weren’t any other studies on the subject, the results are still inconclusive.  Since at the time of the embezzlement I was looking at my phone, and searching for scientific articles anyway, I didn't read those lines and went straight for the references. I randomly picked the second one, because the title caught my eye: Potterat O, Hamburger M. Morindi citrifolia (Noni) fruit—phystochemistry, pharmacology, safety. Planta Med 2007; 73(3): 191-199. Just reading the abstract of the study you get that there isn't enough evidence yet. So I told them, and they used the old ''anecdotal evidence'' trick on me, the ''it worked on me!'' and the ''they wouldn't make millions of dollars if it was a scam'' (Seriously? Are you THAT naive?). They also said the product was approved by Health Canada. Don't make me laugh, this approval only means it's safe to consume, not that it actually does anything. That's why they use the usual buzzwords: helps to, supports, enables, maintain, normalizes, promotes (what the?... promotes?! are you kidding me?...),encourage, most potent, improve, sustains, benefits... All these words are used for a reason you know. Because they can't say ''reduce inflammation'', for example, if they have no evidence that it does that, so they use these words to make it legal. As for the claims like '' Helps Boost Energy'' or ''Promotes Healthy Immune Response'', those can literally be applied to anything from fruits, to water, to shit you found on the floor. As long as there is sugar somewhere, it boosts energy, and almost anything triggers a response from your immune system. That's why there are allergies. I laugh at the scientific illiteracy of the gullible who buy this crap, and the marketing geniuses who thought of this. So of course my arguing and questioning of the cult wasn't welcome and they asked the guy that brought me there to drive me back and I happily obliged. I'm not that easy to fraud. So if you read all of this I just have one advice for you: don't believe everything people tell you, do your own research, but don't just google it, search for scientific articles for those crappy products, or news articles, to know if a company is a scam. I think this is my best article yet, can't wait to write down the next one. See you soon! -KeLvin P.S: Ky√§ni actually has a subtle disclaimer saying how their products are not proven to work ( it's VERY subtle). So they aren't lying to people... but they don't need to, their members will lie in their stead. 

Friday, March 18, 2016

Spiritual people, homeopathy and ''natural'' products (Part 3)

''I believe in reincarnation, fortune tellers and angels, but God? PFFFF... that's ridiculous.''

I think that THOSE people are as annoying as creationists, even more sometime. At least with a creationist you can argue that everything they say is a belief, not a fact, and they may end up agreeing, that , yes, even without evidence, they believe in pretty intense stuff. The spiritual munchkins, however, will not do that. I guess that since there isn't as many people that believe the same things as them they get that smug sense of superiority, thinking that anyone that don't agree with them simply ''don't get it yet''. Yeah, those people think that ''you will understand later'' that it will ''all make sense when you will need it''. Sure, aliens, reincarnation, fortune telling, magic cards, fate, unicorns, fairies and other stuff that haven't been proven yet and lack evidence to be credible will all make sense to me in, like, a matter of milliseconds... if I get brain damage. Do you seriously expect me to suddenly believe in your bullshit as I grow older? That's like when adults say to children '' you will understand when you get older'', that's just a lazy way to dismiss the conversation and shut down any questions. If you can't convince me through evidence or reasoning and need to resort to such lowsome sophistry, then why are you even trying? There is no (good) evidence for what you claim. Also, have you ever noticed how those people are susceptible to conspiracy theories? They seem to be buying them all, like fucking candy or something. Reptilians, Governments hiding stuff, illuminati, 9/11, aliens being our ancestors or protectors, the city of Atlantis... Name one, they believe in most of them anyway, despite ''evidence'' that look so fake or that is so badly interpreted that a child would understand that only paronoiacs could believe such ''evidence'', I don't believe in conspiracies. Just the logic those people use... it's confirmation bias power a billion. '' Did you know reptilians exists and secretly dominate the world? It's terrifying! 
-Well I don't think that's true.
- That's because you just don't get it/because you are either a reptilian or an ally of the reptilians.'' I HATE when someone use that kind of dumb logic against me, it's like when a feminist say '' Are you for gender equality? Yes? Then you are a feminist!
- I don't think I need to be a feminist to be for gender equality, also I don't share your ideas on rape culture and patriarchy...''
If that person was a man the feminist would answer : '' You rape apologist! Patriarchy and rape culture are FACTS,if you don't believe they are true you are denying women oppression caused by the patriarchy! In fact, I think you are so privileged that you are blinded to your own privilege! That's why you can't get it!''
 And if that person was a woman: '' ...But you are a woman. How can you be against affirmative actions for yourself? You are a serious case of internalized mysoginy. We need to reeducate you, get that patriachal education out of your head.'' Ahem, so you get the point... my next article is about Feminism. And the one after that, Anarchism ( it's even dumber than Feminism at times). So that's all for this three part article on spiritual, crystal healers, essential oils users. See you soon - KeLvin

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Spiritual people, homeopathy and ''natural'' products (Part 2)

''I believe in homeopathy, despite no scientific evidence, because it makes sense to me and is more natural, and natural means better''

I hate people that believe in homeopathy, faith healing, acupuncture, crystal healing ( are you kidding me? crystals? You think you are in a JRPG or what?), Chakras, and so on. WHY!? Why do you believe in something that may only work because of placebo effect? '' well we use diluted poison/illness to fight the poison/disease, make sense, it's like vaccines!'' No. It. Isn't. When you dilute something, then throw away the content, and put more water... then repeat an hundred time, you only get water, with maybe a few molecules of the thing you first diluted. You are drinking water, with other bullshit, so it doesn't look like water. Also did you know homeopathic products are not at all regulated? You could be swallowing/eating/drinking crap! In fact, you most probably are, and you paid a lot of money for that. Idiots! It's a scam!  There is no pharmaceutical plot to discredit your precious essential oils, they make things that works, things that hospitals and governments pay for. Why? BECAUSE THEY WORK.  Holy shit, it's so obvious! If there is no scientific evidence that a drug work don't take it! it's safer that way. ''but it worked for me/my mom/my aunt!'' are you sure it was those homeopathic products that helped? Maybe there is other variables, like the placebo effect, other medication, or a chirurgy( don't laugh, a vegan pretended that paganism, sorry, veganism, healed his cancer, but he lied, he had chirurgy). ''Drugs are not natural and I don't trust man made products, I am a natural crystal healing vegan boudhist'' ... Fuck you. You really are a moron. Those drugs are made from natural sources, I already explained that in the previous part. Also, why artificial is worse? Most of our lives bath in artificiality: cars, schools, computers, language... Everything we know is man made. Clothes for example. Do you think that ''natural is better'' apply there as well? Everyone naked? Or maybe you are old fashioned and want to go back to the Dark ages and do bleeding to ''get the illness out''? Or maybe we should pierce the skull so bad spirits get out and we let our brain breath a little? Morons. Also, no study shows that electromagnetism is bad for us, no study show that acupuncture, crystal healing, or the extreme dillution work, no study show chakras exist and influence our health. SO shut up, and take your Ibuprofen, that works at least. ''but I read a book...'' A few advices about sources. 1: check who wrote it, obviously. 2: was it research, experiments or statistical analysis? if so does the methodology was scientific, or the conclusions logical? 3: check if the book has a bibliography, if not, that' probably a shitty book like the Secret. '' It doesn't have sources, but that because of the pharmaceutical conspiracy to...'' ARGHHHH I'll stop here. sigh. 

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Spiritual people, homeopathy and ''natural'' products (Part 1)

Spiritual people, homeopathy and ''natural'' products


We all know someone who is either spiritual, believe  in homeopathy, or think that 'bio'' and ''natural'' labels on products means they are better for you by default. Usually, if they are spiritual they will believe the latter two, if they are homeopath believers they will believe in ''natural'' products but not the spiritual bullshit, and if they believe in ''natural is better'' they might not believe the first two. So the dumber people are the spiritual people huh? Not very surprising. So since they are the dumbest  I'll end this article with them, let's start with the least stupid, the ''natural is better'' munchkins.

''Natural is better'' ...Sometimes, not always, also check what you are buying...


''I buy bio and natural because it's better for my health/because I think it's more environmentally friendly/because artificial is man made, and thus bad, I prefer natural, it feel better.'' 


UGH. Where to start?  Oh right! Do you know what is bio and natural? ''Well everything that came from natural sources, something not man made.'' So everything and nothing then? Because all that is sold in stores was man made, either because of the harvest, the culture or the breeding, the transportation, the factories or whatever. Also everything come from natural sources, we can't make stuff out of nothing in labs you know, sure we transform things into other things, but they still are from natural sources in the end. Also it's not because it's written ''natural flavoring'' that the stuff was not made in a lab... that simply mean they barely transformed it, that they simply extracted it from the source. An example of this? Well did you know that in some naturally flavored vanilla ice cream the flavor doesn't come from vanilla but from beaver anal glands extract ( they separate the flavor from the other stuff in a lab)? Yeah, no kidding, it's really is that gross. You can achieve the same chemicals in a lab without extracting it from a poor beaver anus, but you'll have to call it ''artificial'' since it was not produced in a natural environnment, still I think it's safe to assume that it is probably more environnmentally friendly, and less gross the artificial than the natural way... Now about bio... Do you really think everything without that label ISN'T biological? By definition human beings can only eat what is biological! The rare exceptions are salts and other minerals, other from that everything else is biological. Also if by that you meant ''no GMOs'' well, sorry to dissapoint you, but most GMO are not made in labs the way you think they are. Most of them come from the hard way: artificial and natural selection(AKA evolution). There is some plants and animals that are genetically engineered in labs, like strawberries, that have anti-frost genes from atlantic red salmons, but those are not all you eat. You also eat clones. Lot of clones. The strawberries I just mentionned? Probably clones, since strawberry plants can reproduce both sexually and asexually, guess which is faster and easier for agriculture? Do you like buying ''bio'' bananas? Guess what? They are not only all clones, but they are also a 100% man made species. The real banana taste ( well we can't know, the real bananas dissapeared long ago because of illnesses) is more similar to those banana soft candies that taste sweet and different from the bananas we are used to. But even that taste is not the original bananas but another variety of another artificially man made species. Why do we have artificial clone bananas? Well I don't know for sure, but the reality is that we first created a sweet type of banana and clone reproduced them (AKA we cut branches). But since the bananas were all the same when an unexpected illness came it wiped out the entire banana population. So we created another type of banana resistent to that illness, the type we still eat today. But guess what? History is repeating itself, a new disease is killing bananas right now. So yeah you got the point, the ''natural is better'' bulshit is moronic. Also lot of artificial stuff is good for you, take medicinal drugs for example! Those can save your life or make it easier when you are suffering from diseases or injuries. Huh? Homeopathy? Oh right, I forgot about those morons... I'll tackle them in part 2. 

Wisdom teeth, they suck

So I haven't posted in a while, sorry about that, I had fever from my wisdom teeth growing, I went to the dentist (cost me a hundred. urg.) she told me I should take all of them out. But it would cost me between 400 and 1200$ so it isn't happening. Anyway now that wisdom is growing painlessly for me I should be able to write down something soon enough, don't know about what yet, but i'll find out. See ya! :) - KeLvin