tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21477820009095984842024-02-07T18:38:26.691-08:00Richard Bruce BaxterRichard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-79029891289658715042020-06-13T02:53:00.001-07:002020-06-13T02:53:27.719-07:00Dissenter Browser Plugin<a href="https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/gab-dissenter-extension/releases">https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/gab-dissenter-extension/releases</a>Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-6014144823009870512020-04-02T20:37:00.003-07:002020-04-02T20:37:43.795-07:00The evolutionary psychology of politics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_OtA8yb9fE6uzt4_mORwJOOcLRvMxMahr6ghMs92ZAVE2DPcEj5lhFOj3XI0uGJmJNVs0q5OkthKs0aVYSdLA9dSsvNGHtW1waXAiY6lokgvtHrJexep-wBkCDx06-1-eJ3uSPjSAI_aF/s1600/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+politics.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_OtA8yb9fE6uzt4_mORwJOOcLRvMxMahr6ghMs92ZAVE2DPcEj5lhFOj3XI0uGJmJNVs0q5OkthKs0aVYSdLA9dSsvNGHtW1waXAiY6lokgvtHrJexep-wBkCDx06-1-eJ3uSPjSAI_aF/s400/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+politics.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-10705843941772892502020-04-01T00:30:00.003-07:002020-04-01T00:30:56.161-07:00The evolutionary psychology of sexual reproduction<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMblJLZ0pzmpqot3ujmU02x5kJI3nfWjma5MadEig50CdDlIgP0iMGhhNK5UckeqRNLDVlCpMD8bUh3uyfd8Mejrh1knDFkDfCqLyF26X-Iu2Lqjki8kjCWDPsIfiq_4E670ZlbV4d_FBN/s1600/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+sexual+reproduction.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMblJLZ0pzmpqot3ujmU02x5kJI3nfWjma5MadEig50CdDlIgP0iMGhhNK5UckeqRNLDVlCpMD8bUh3uyfd8Mejrh1knDFkDfCqLyF26X-Iu2Lqjki8kjCWDPsIfiq_4E670ZlbV4d_FBN/s400/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+sexual+reproduction.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-275325250233450292020-04-01T00:29:00.001-07:002020-04-01T00:31:25.480-07:00The evolutionary psychology of pornography<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC-cVyiZ_zMJGS1677R4GCoaP_fzEYjjq7YAgsEV9PONhrhHwWHhPpLnwS_eTH8IUAIEVNDqPn4GWXjKzi8xNUhTW6iOV4ldCK0o3pRQkWMQ_FW7wB9b27YvZOnR6T2llW5cqWacZlBmHs/s1600/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+pornography.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC-cVyiZ_zMJGS1677R4GCoaP_fzEYjjq7YAgsEV9PONhrhHwWHhPpLnwS_eTH8IUAIEVNDqPn4GWXjKzi8xNUhTW6iOV4ldCK0o3pRQkWMQ_FW7wB9b27YvZOnR6T2llW5cqWacZlBmHs/s400/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+pornography.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-43961987056795627782020-02-02T02:24:00.001-08:002020-02-02T02:24:15.998-08:00The evolutionary psychology of population replacement<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDH8xpXUaWqzXcuvkVLEdd35iAbC2FV5dUQrGnTrwY8QHU7fE5JhPfV4cQuQBGT5r1hpo1OV4P04yN_EGGfwAku0_5rs3_w03Xu2g3wdG3-8HhLChaHvF52Gq-OnEu1OH1_sVfoPkbJZkx/s1600/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+population+replacement.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="951" data-original-width="1600" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDH8xpXUaWqzXcuvkVLEdd35iAbC2FV5dUQrGnTrwY8QHU7fE5JhPfV4cQuQBGT5r1hpo1OV4P04yN_EGGfwAku0_5rs3_w03Xu2g3wdG3-8HhLChaHvF52Gq-OnEu1OH1_sVfoPkbJZkx/s400/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+population+replacement.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-67980086566572975832020-01-31T06:58:00.000-08:002020-01-31T06:58:00.479-08:00The nature of morality<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjae1qfrI3hZfTBoy-tpblR-sLrRcS8PS7UJKuz6CDtNowxc_S0VaT0RjZySWqqtxBo8NiQr74hKTbPhmbUpQLJAVvkFgidtcntF8wHws1uhVOuXRUvFbJn_m74hhCv2aMP3il3AEGIXEzO/s1600/theNatureOfMorality.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1538" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjae1qfrI3hZfTBoy-tpblR-sLrRcS8PS7UJKuz6CDtNowxc_S0VaT0RjZySWqqtxBo8NiQr74hKTbPhmbUpQLJAVvkFgidtcntF8wHws1uhVOuXRUvFbJn_m74hhCv2aMP3il3AEGIXEzO/s400/theNatureOfMorality.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-76024587573912583482020-01-29T03:56:00.001-08:002020-01-29T04:03:16.794-08:00The evolutionary psychology of feminism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBPvRH2Ps3nftF8hrs9FGhVsVoA2vgAfwFHR4hEDbDYHpUSEtZ62QxVIEVd68GRr-nZrOLWUxqediw8we1jCb6qwJfeVj08pGnU2YN27HS5zL-kflmgrr0ttTYYEslPls34vOH6RuFUp7u/s1600/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+feminism.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1548" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBPvRH2Ps3nftF8hrs9FGhVsVoA2vgAfwFHR4hEDbDYHpUSEtZ62QxVIEVd68GRr-nZrOLWUxqediw8we1jCb6qwJfeVj08pGnU2YN27HS5zL-kflmgrr0ttTYYEslPls34vOH6RuFUp7u/s400/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+feminism.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-742035030548578582019-07-02T02:12:00.000-07:002019-07-02T02:12:40.337-07:00The evolutionary psychology of contraceptive dating markets<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXGOljMCTI0mkCWvkzbMlenHXSiVRabIrwi4pFpsGkQHF8BTVTSd3sRRhQXvUFvdJeupLRutLFlYPSmcjz-B3nUdgGzGRxP2obQ93lZQ5pQou9UzkeHMkvGAqS2NQGUIQk-dNOY72ZcEeq/s1600/evoPsycOfContraceptiveDatingMarketDiagram1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1079" data-original-width="763" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXGOljMCTI0mkCWvkzbMlenHXSiVRabIrwi4pFpsGkQHF8BTVTSd3sRRhQXvUFvdJeupLRutLFlYPSmcjz-B3nUdgGzGRxP2obQ93lZQ5pQou9UzkeHMkvGAqS2NQGUIQk-dNOY72ZcEeq/s640/evoPsycOfContraceptiveDatingMarketDiagram1.png" width="452" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-38403540346584623032019-04-09T14:30:00.000-07:002019-09-28T06:34:31.131-07:00Speech Censorship Record<p>
<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BLm4cOOkA9NYkZ8UapwUCxECkPgL15oA/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BLm4cOOkA9NYkZ8UapwUCxECkPgL15oA/view?usp=sharing</a>
</p>
<iframe height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BLm4cOOkA9NYkZ8UapwUCxECkPgL15oA/preview" width="640"></iframe>
Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-61306544041052994452019-04-07T09:23:00.001-07:002019-05-03T09:50:23.632-07:00He Who Must Not Be Named: how Censorship Accelerates Civil Conflict<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4V66_6P0S_U0J1oMWiFnuOLQmuYjnGn0EPo9eP6ZhO-HGPusEbqGCHE9easB4nK8WZDc0TsPMW9Po9VcalixUa9PZFJObkaqN_b59rcDS9bsiSv81giZiS7llQo71n9ABsRPxPzlOpMmN/s1600/fahrenheit451.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="748" data-original-width="1510" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4V66_6P0S_U0J1oMWiFnuOLQmuYjnGn0EPo9eP6ZhO-HGPusEbqGCHE9easB4nK8WZDc0TsPMW9Po9VcalixUa9PZFJObkaqN_b59rcDS9bsiSv81giZiS7llQo71n9ABsRPxPzlOpMmN/s320/fahrenheit451.jpg" width="320" /></a>So the book burning begins.<br />
<br />
What if I told you there was an argument so persuasive, that anyone exposed to it might change their view of the world? While so transformative, that in order to maintain social order, those in authority would be obliged to question the motivation of anyone communicating it?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It is clear, as I am sure you are aware, that UK legislators are now moving rapidly towards introducing regulatory powers to deal with those who seek to use the garb of freedom of speech to, instead, preach violent hate with the aim of damaging and undermining our society."</blockquote>
Again, an argument so persuasive, and socially transformative, it might even make people consider sexual deviants as human beings? Who would claim authority to delineate such radical ideas? Those whose freedom had been granted to them by free speech itself? (<a href="https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1100527483437297664">https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1100527483437297664</a>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZrxkWSyk1mPdafJ5-w3c7r4o1gz1UimAdXHgVo_JL_9oenH51rKGrNDR0n-LyxRF6o8LkT6Th35OdYKbEKWBHP8rQniWp2xZKONAL3mP0W1cbQfnriNdsxXQmklAf6r-RNBozWSPdYx-6/s1600/quran.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="666" data-original-width="1600" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZrxkWSyk1mPdafJ5-w3c7r4o1gz1UimAdXHgVo_JL_9oenH51rKGrNDR0n-LyxRF6o8LkT6Th35OdYKbEKWBHP8rQniWp2xZKONAL3mP0W1cbQfnriNdsxXQmklAf6r-RNBozWSPdYx-6/s640/quran.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
Does the First Amendment only apply to sufficiently obedient individuals, characters who play not, accepting their pre-allotted program? Human beings detest being herded like cattle (<a href="https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1107774899232268288">https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1107774899232268288</a>). Thus censorship of speech is the most efficient pathway to destabilisation. Everyone honest knows this, even the most ideologically driven utilitarian (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on4O4g5pQrw&t=0m15s">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on4O4g5pQrw&t=0m15s</a>).<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines."</blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmh9ujcmTug43CI28TM1bZrrh6kSjbXQboPr8qXojyhRIH2kXgUSszux_FjE59qXUJA4s2KXXASUH7_17R8NlBJ7ngokPRkq1d_Y6lmYBo_mcFqvAhJYAasWwkiqMdF3G7XR5YUoFcqSFf/s1600/MohammedsKoran.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1061" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmh9ujcmTug43CI28TM1bZrrh6kSjbXQboPr8qXojyhRIH2kXgUSszux_FjE59qXUJA4s2KXXASUH7_17R8NlBJ7ngokPRkq1d_Y6lmYBo_mcFqvAhJYAasWwkiqMdF3G7XR5YUoFcqSFf/s320/MohammedsKoran.jpg" width="212" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">banned from Amazon <br />
~27 February 2019</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Likewise, institutionalised censorship of language is the ultimate litmus test for national infiltration by authoritarian actors. <a href="http://dissenter.com/">Dissenting</a> voices are silenced, the public is denied access to alternate ideas or opinions. "Make no mistake", there is little difference between fascism and marxism. It can scarcely be said that communism has exterminated disproportionately more of its own citizens than national socialism. Accordingly, the current censorship saga is causing a massive crisis of credibility for our institutions.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, censorship of speech is disproportionately favoured by low GI individuals. Meaning, it is statistically more likely that sociologists including those educated in politics will unwittingly favour such censorship (vs for example, those trained in hard sciences). GI is also positively correlated with "openness" and humour.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDCL-qA0U9La2id7Zmpny6khrCnT2WUTWxOWqWLYX3OTRPIj62vBvoV6cTcn9_UnCovJnLOU2o_dMspEPSUAwELwhGnk7X49SUG5ldXE4SvMOI4pi2hIDQIhDVeQRBzRpFFCWrzFd2BM2k/s1600/freeSpeechAbsolutismVsIQ.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="605" data-original-width="467" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDCL-qA0U9La2id7Zmpny6khrCnT2WUTWxOWqWLYX3OTRPIj62vBvoV6cTcn9_UnCovJnLOU2o_dMspEPSUAwELwhGnk7X49SUG5ldXE4SvMOI4pi2hIDQIhDVeQRBzRpFFCWrzFd2BM2k/s320/freeSpeechAbsolutismVsIQ.png" width="247" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Free speech absolutism vs IQ"<br />
(<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180312014111/http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/free-speech-absolutism.html">source</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Yet elements of the British government are actively deleting critique of their censorship agenda. Facetious tweets which a) compare the proposed digital erasure of dissenting citizen voices to that of a "communist" "police state" and b) categorise the dismissal of counter-narrative positions through ideological ad hominem as "propaganda", are buried by social media; <a href="https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1101931566387941376">https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1101931566387941376</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1102025471720476672">https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1102025471720476672</a>). It is particularly disturbing that this propaganda continues to be fed to the public now that we have direct evidence calling human beings names doesn't work; that it just radicalises them.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"bigot,racist,xenophobe,islamophobe,nazi,fascist!"</blockquote>
<br />
It is evident the modern propaganda machine aims to categorise dissenting opinions as "hate", without acknowledging the natural purpose of such emotion (for example, abhorrence of paedophilia or abduction of a community's high-value gamete sex). Similarly, once a totalitarian censor censors speech, they can't stop censoring, because they must forever silence any reference to the dissident. Now on Facebook, the mere mention of "Tommy Robinson" is banned, resulting in immediate suspension/termination of the user. This phenomenon is known as second order censorship, as witnessed by the USSR (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN6PDbTv4Ug&t=6m0s">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN6PDbTv4Ug&t=6m0s</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93ivPbYk-cU&t=0m50s">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93ivPbYk-cU&t=0m50s</a>). Next on the authoritarian hit list: Anne Marie Waters. <span style="background-color: yellow;">[update 4 May 2019: referencing Alex Jones/Info Wars on Facebook is now illegal.]</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuwrZ1z3vnPhcjPB8IIl0TCczoZ68LoCrfn5hLrhxxVVJmjWbr0rHgsxRKJrGZhjM95-onEzNosp_Jkrm0A0Bmc4BMx3XmnsnkjMrZBLk2WGBDwpstYIL5qsc6gllrkDgFtUkrKgnigstD/s1600/TRracialSuperiority.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuwrZ1z3vnPhcjPB8IIl0TCczoZ68LoCrfn5hLrhxxVVJmjWbr0rHgsxRKJrGZhjM95-onEzNosp_Jkrm0A0Bmc4BMx3XmnsnkjMrZBLk2WGBDwpstYIL5qsc6gllrkDgFtUkrKgnigstD/s320/TRracialSuperiority.png" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
What is equally disturbing is that Tommy Robinson content is not even "alt-right" (according to its most broad definition; having a preference for racial preservation), and certainly not "racist" (according to its traditional definition; believing in racial superiority). He was charged for forcibly expelling (punching) 'neonazis' from the EDL, making an international billionaire's endless supply of funding for domestic terrorism (ANTIFA) unoriginal and pale in comparison. What then is the reason for its censorship? Because it is moderate and
therefore attractive to the masses? Is the establishment afraid of
losing power over the democracy it purports to acknowledge?<br />
<br />
Fortunately for the wizarding world, Magic, albeit a non-additive trait based on near 100% recessive dominance (as demonstrated by the <a href="https://www.pottermore.com/features/the-potter-family-tree">Potter</a>, <a href="https://www.pottermore.com/features/the-weasley-family-tree">Weasley</a>, <a href="https://www.pottermore.com/features/black-family-tree">Black</a>, <a href="https://www.pottermore.com/features/sayre-family-tree">Sayre</a>, <a href="https://www.pottermore.com/features/the-longbottom-family-tree">Longbottom</a>, and <a href="https://www.pottermore.com/features/the-malfoy-family-tree">Malfoy</a> family trees; some Squibs presumably carry two copies of the favourable allele), cannot be lost from the gene-pool by cross-breeding. Yet in real life we have no such guarantees. The vast majority of the human phenotype is based on the interaction of genetic material at different loci (epistasis; gene-gene interaction). If any such complex adaptations arose in a specific human population over 50,000 years of separation (approx 1/80000 of the evolutionary age of the organism), and if they involved interactions at ~10 or more loci, then the likelihood of them being completely recoverable after ~10 generations of indiscriminate genetic crossing between populations is negligible (bar artificial gene editing). GI is one candidate for which 50% of its effect is predicted to be non-additive (<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104">https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104</a> / <a href="https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc5985927">https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc5985927</a>). Ingroup selection was presumably critical to the acceleration of this trait in Ashkenazi Jews, and it likely relies on interaction at more than one locus. Slytherin may be unpalatable to our most egalitarian affections, but it is not without reason that we tolerate viewpoint diversity. Conservatism is risk management.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC8NIqg54jfbM-3_d3cY1dtMbUNwwhBwCE6G3Tv9_lGtxfO3VHusGepS1xh-m5jEY1uNomXQdI52mFn-qp-UBRtQqMnc6PEoNS5AuQZQURH2omJrIWgKrTr4YtvW8RNhYKDe-O4ZpIgCje/s1600/banEverything.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="1334" height="355" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC8NIqg54jfbM-3_d3cY1dtMbUNwwhBwCE6G3Tv9_lGtxfO3VHusGepS1xh-m5jEY1uNomXQdI52mFn-qp-UBRtQqMnc6PEoNS5AuQZQURH2omJrIWgKrTr4YtvW8RNhYKDe-O4ZpIgCje/s640/banEverything.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://quillette.com/2019/02/07/facebook-has-a-right-to-block-hate-speech-but-heres-why-it-shouldnt">Facebook 2012 mission statement </a>; to "make the world more open and
connected, and give people the power to share")</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
It is an educated citizen's social responsibility to read every banned book. Free citizens never negotiate with psychological terrorists.<br />
<br />
(This review is not to disparage censorship initiatives devoid of 'logophobia', of which some here criticised have contributed to, and for which they are respected).Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-82297129235183550482019-03-17T20:13:00.000-07:002019-03-17T20:15:26.104-07:00The word 'ally'The Final Moment (Short Film)<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv_m3oFMVks">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv_m3oFMVks</a><br />
<br />
2010: space odyssey (extracts)<br />
<a href="https://vimeo.com/324809062">https://vimeo.com/324809062</a><br />
<a href="https://vimeo.com/324810065">https://vimeo.com/324810065</a><br />
<a href="https://vimeo.com/324812387">https://vimeo.com/324812387</a><br />
<a href="https://vimeo.com/324814225">https://vimeo.com/324814225</a><br />
<a href="https://vimeo.com/324816067">https://vimeo.com/324816067</a><br />
<a href="https://vimeo.com/324817915">https://vimeo.com/324817915</a>Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-39995193021152706162018-11-22T20:34:00.001-08:002018-11-22T20:34:18.781-08:00The cult of intersectionality<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg</a><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1aSykVhsTo&lc=UgxZ3efQ01McfsC_3JB4AaABAg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1aSykVhsTo&lc=UgxZ3efQ01McfsC_3JB4AaABAg</a>Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-82036496101628790392018-10-27T06:59:00.000-07:002018-10-27T06:59:03.839-07:00Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff charged for suggesting that 56yo intercourse with 9yo is paedophiliaElizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was charged for questioning whether a 56 year old's marriage to a 6 year old and sexual intercourse at age 9 might be called paedophilia. The charge was upheld by both the Austrian Supreme Court and the ECHR (25 October 2018);<br />
<br />
<a href="https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-187188"]}">https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-187188"]}</a><br />
<br />
The suggestion was made within a seminar titled "Basic information on Islam".<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-44122269252201718982018-10-14T08:28:00.001-07:002018-10-14T08:28:35.939-07:00Deconstructing BBC Propaganda<b>"Tommy Robinson: 'You didn't expose abuse'" (BBC Newsnight - 11 Oct 2018)</b><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqjpna8aLBE&lc=Ugw5Uba5tbf1NnKOPVB4AaABAg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqjpna8aLBE&lc=Ugw5Uba5tbf1NnKOPVB4AaABAg</a><br /><br />Errors in compilation;<br />1. (00:08) "a villain to many but a hero to some"; the qualitative judgements reported here have been determined by his representation/labelling by MSM. It would have been productive to report conflict of interest (their role in shaping TR as a villain through terminology such as "extremist"/"far right").<br />2. (00:23) it would have been productive to report why he goes under the alias TR; protection of self/family against political/religious threats.<br />3. (00:40) selective broadcasting of disturbed TR supporters makes the BBC look biased and negatively affects their reputation with respect to neutrality.<br />4. (00:36) it would have been productive to report why his sentence was "later quashed" by the court of appeal; because it had over 7 systematic errors in its execution, making it "fundamentally flawed" (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yjbQye5RM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yjbQye5RM</a> / <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEBdSc8WLY8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEBdSc8WLY8</a> [3:00]).<br />5. (00:37) it would have been productive to report why TR can "still go back to prison"; because two new charges have been brought forth - claims of jeopardising the Leeds trial by reporting on publicly available grooming gang demographics declared by 3 independent parties - claims which are contradicted by a discussion between the original judge Marson and the CPS (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6-EygiQlA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6-EygiQlA</a> 3:58) after they watched the full livestream post jailing TR (in that it contained nothing to jeopardise the trial; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk</a>).<br />6. (00:47) "these days he calls himself a journalist"; TR has worked for Rebel Media and is currently an independent journalist. He undertook journalistic training with respect to contempt of court at one of the best law firms in the country before being arrested at Leeds court for breach of peace (later "contempt of court" and then quashed by the court of appeal).<br />7. (1:28) selective broadcasting of unimpressed policewomen makes the BBC look biased and again negatively affects their reputation with respect to neutrality.<br />8. (1:52/6:50/11:24) "islamophobia" implies irrational fear so it would generally be prescribed after examining the evidence (or making a journalistic case on a broadcast) not before.<br />9. (5:46) "the majority of paedophiles in this country are white men" - child gang rape/paedophilia (majority "Asian"/Pakistani Muslim) is not equivalent to child rape/paedophilia (majority "white"). <br />10. (5:46) The percentage of "Asians" (Pakistani Muslim) are lower compared to "whites", so we would expect white paedophilia to be much (1 / 1.2m Pakistani/65m total pop x 90% Muslim = 50 times) higher than such "asian" paedophilia all things being equal. One has to examine statistical over-representation of Pakistani Muslim child rape with respect to the base rate (of Pakistani Muslims in the country).<br />11. (5:50) "go to any Tommy Robinson rally and you would come away with the impression that child abuse is somehow linked to Islam"; a thorough reading of the Old Testament and Quran would seriously assist in the BBC's ability to objectively report on this issue. The bible primarily contains stories/narratives/accounts of events including laws as given to Moses, whereas the Quran primarily contains commands/interpretations/assertions (narration versus dictation). This lends the Quran to being taken as an instruction manual. Moreover, it repeatedly asserts this as its required interpretation (while providing a method for dealing with contradictions across surahs; abrogation - <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081011212809/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.106">https://web.archive.org/web/20081011212809/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.106</a> / <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081019234821/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html#016.101">https://web.archive.org/web/20081019234821/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html#016.101</a>). The bible does not codify sexual slavery (with captives of war), yet the Quran can be interpreted to do so (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081019234836/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/023.qmt.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20081019234836/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/023.qmt.html</a> / <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081106182616/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/070.qmt.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20081106182616/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/070.qmt.html</a> / <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081020003745/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/024.qmt.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20081020003745/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/024.qmt.html</a>). Muhammad had at least one child bride (taken at age 6, consummated at age 9), along with multiple wives and sexual slaves, unlike the religious founder of the Church of England (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.028">https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.028</a> / <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.050">https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.050</a> / <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/066.qmt.html#066.003">https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/066.qmt.html#066.003</a>).<br />12. (8:00) continuing to interview only critics of TR is not going to improve the BBC's reputation for misreporting about TR.<br />13. (8:15) "he seemed to be the go to Muslim" - this segment frames an outspoken and unapologetic cleric as exclusively representative of TR's view on Islamic following (it would have been more objective to examine the actual arguments of TR).<br />14. (10:40) "they are hanging their politics explicitly on an anti-muslim agenda"; this statement is subversive and should be corrected - confounding ideas with people is precisely how actual extremism (dehumanisation) develops. Where politics is involved there is only an anti-islamic agenda. (Note UKIP has multiple unrelated policies so any categorisation of their politics as being dependent on this agenda is questionable).<br />15. (11:05) "the platforms are been given over to the extremist ideologues" - the only way to prevent actual extremism (which is minimal in the TR movement), is to start reporting on facts neutrally. Censorship will not work as it will just go offline/underground. The solution is more not less information/speech. Similarly, there needs to be greater and more detailed criticism of culture and religion.<br />16. (11:35) "the people who have exposed scandals throughout the country is survivors contacting the media"; this is of course correct. Yet the "right" (including Sikhs, e.g. <a href="https://sasorg.co.uk/about">https://sasorg.co.uk/about</a>) were talking about the Pakistani/Muslim grooming gangs before the MSM or establishment (first reported by MSM 2010; <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/shropshire/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8662000/8662856.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/shropshire/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8662000/8662856.stm</a>). Their coverage was cited by MSM reporter Andrew Norfolk who conducted the first MSM investigation into the demographics of grooming gang assaults. Andrew Norfolk declared their own findings to be in accordance with "the far right's dream story" ("innocent white girls, evil dark skinned men"; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7xhNYJV430">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7xhNYJV430</a> 3:52), in that it is precisely what the "right" had been reporting. The "right" continue to talk about the problem far more than the MSM, thereby "exposing" the problem to public awareness. Again, it does critically depend on victims to first come forward.<br /><br /><b>"Tommy Robinson is in prison and this is why" (Channel 4 News - 7 Jun 2018)</b><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUYPGNvsHXk&lc=UgyZc7uboZpn-AkEzC94AaABAg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUYPGNvsHXk&lc=UgyZc7uboZpn-AkEzC94AaABAg</a><br /><br />Adam Wagner; "If Tommy Robinson was really bothered about getting justice for the victims of the crimes, then he wouldn't have attempted to derail the trial by reporting it in a prejudicial way";<br />1. The judge who sentenced TR hadn't seen the full live stream; <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNWJZMyJz4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNWJZMyJz4</a> [<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk</a>] <br />
2. TR was careful to use the word "alleged" whenever referencing the accused (unlike other journalists; e.g. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU</a>).<br />3. TR repeatedly asked the police and crew whether he was allowed to be reporting outside the court (off the steps). The police responded by saying "as long as you're respectful". Note the reason TR was being so careful in this regard is because he was previously charged with contempt of court (of another child gang rape trial).<br />4. The question TR asked of the accused "how are you feeling about the verdict? Is there any guilt?" mirrors what a prominent SkyNews reporter asked Count Dankula outside the court (implying that it classifies as respectful according to journalistic standards).<br />5. Compared to the time in which TR was charged with contempt of court, previous hearings being reported on involved verbal harassment of the accused by media/persons outside the court (e.g. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wOtot5z7yA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wOtot5z7yA</a>). TR is one of few individuals in the UK yet required to be overtly courteous to alleged gang rapists of young girls.<br />6. The audience numbers were 10000 during the livestream (the only reason a quarter of a million have now watched it is because the general public have detected a discrepancy in the administration of justice in the case of TR). These audience numbers are similar to those witnessing recordings of previous hearings by independent journalists (e.g. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU</a>).<br />7. TR's reporting apparently occurred on the final day of the trial when "the jury are making their verdict", meaning it was assumed that the reporting would/could not influence the outcome of the trial.<br />8. There is evidence to suggest TR is one of only few journalists in the UK who has consistently and actively cared about the UK child gang rape victims over the decade.<br /><br />Classifying TR's activities as right wing is disingenuous given that 90% of the child gang rape cases involve accused persons from an Islamic/Pakistani background/demographic (and any reasonable individual would like to know why, irrespective of their political affiliation). A large number of persons were instrumental in lifting the media ban ("blackout") on TR's imprisonment.<br /><br />[note TR's contempt of 25 May 2018 court sentence was quashed by the court of appeal 1 Aug 2018 and he was released from prison. Two new charges have since been brought forward for an optioned retrial of the original case].<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-53519288212787599102018-10-07T07:19:00.000-07:002018-10-07T07:19:11.049-07:00Alessandro Strumia's critique of social constructionist extremism<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view</a>Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-38773866721895507622018-06-07T22:36:00.000-07:002018-08-19T20:31:25.062-07:00UK citizen arrested for talking about child gang rape outside of court<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNWJZMyJz4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNWJZMyJz4</a> <br />
<br />
(EDIT: The original link was published by Infowars affiliate REAL TNTV News, now banned. Alternate link not published by a censored media outlet; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk</a>) Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-86466774625974433142018-02-18T18:28:00.003-08:002018-02-26T20:54:56.697-08:00Evolutionary psychology outlawed<a href="https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10795946/32ca205351011618pdf.pdf">https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10795946/32ca205351011618pdf.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Interviews;<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCrQ3EU8_PM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCrQ3EU8_PM</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-gfO1zHp4w">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-gfO1zHp4w</a><br />
<br />
<div>
Background reading;<br />
<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23862/full">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23862/full</a><br />
<br /></div>
Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-78596237689899776782017-08-10T21:42:00.001-07:002017-08-10T21:42:44.872-07:00James Damore's critique of social constructionist extremism<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf">https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf</a><br /><br />Interviews;<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro</a><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU</a>Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-10166075432225635002014-04-05T05:34:00.000-07:002014-04-05T05:34:57.715-07:00The sexual orientation of child abusers in the Roman Catholic Church<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqZLEFqDgUXMFLN3Q58Q8JTrRkFllQdOr5uN1BI7ID3M_0FFVy9AV1E42H2CrM3OgM1KvUIQrp-4PtL7wn-EMiaa2g2Mh07FjriO-rJpXndPtf8En3l3jMkvKLQeGO0rOFLHyBkO-4wkPU/s1600/brokenRitesAbuserSexualOrientationStats.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqZLEFqDgUXMFLN3Q58Q8JTrRkFllQdOr5uN1BI7ID3M_0FFVy9AV1E42H2CrM3OgM1KvUIQrp-4PtL7wn-EMiaa2g2Mh07FjriO-rJpXndPtf8En3l3jMkvKLQeGO0rOFLHyBkO-4wkPU/s1600/brokenRitesAbuserSexualOrientationStats.png" height="361" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-556022233546592762013-02-09T22:20:00.003-08:002013-02-10T01:54:22.396-08:00Australia's Human Rights Abuse: Governments Legalise Human Consumption (prostitution and commercial objectification)For we are young and... tolerant.<br />
<br />
The following complaint was made to <a href="http://humanrights.gov.au/">humanrights.gov.au</a>. Now is the time to stand up for your freedom. What Australia is being offered is the protection of dehumanisation and the institutionalisation of the government's beliefs. This is a dangerous combination which historically has been restricted to totalitarian states.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Summary:</b><br /><br />Failure of the Australian Government to protect the rights of its citizens - overseeing the legalisation of prostitution in Australian states and territories (e.g. Prostitution Act 1979). Failure to defend Australians against dehumanisation in the form of sexual objectification in the media.<br /><br /><b>Explain Violation:</b><br /><br />The Australian Government has failed to protect the human rights of its citizens. Where other countries (e.g. Sweden) have recognised the vulnerability of its citizens to sexual exploitation and therefore banned the sexual consumption of its citizens (their purchase), Australia has done nothing while claiming it stands for Human Rights. The Australian government has acted in gross negligence. The Australian government has overseen the legalisation of prostitution in Australian states and territories (e.g. NSW Prostitution Act 1979). It has failed to provide alternate, humane solutions to identified problems facing marginalised members of its society (who have psychological and economic difficulties, often having suffered sexual abuse prior to having their bodies sold for the first time). There has also been a complete failure to defend Australians against dehumanisation in the form of sexual objectification in the media. The psychological effects of tolerating the presentation of humans (including Australian citizens) as sexual objects for consumption have not been properly investigated. Until this has been completed (and the scientific data is in order), all forms of media and performance promoting the sexual objectification of human beings in Australian society must be outlawed.<br /><br /><b>Recommended Actions:</b><br /><br />The purchase of "sexual services" (prostitution) should be banned immediately across Australia in line with internationally recognised movements towards integrated human rights protection (Sweden should be taken as a case study). Sexual objectification in the media and performance should be outlawed until complete scientific studies have been conducted as to its effects on Australian citizens (on both those dehumanised, and those experiencing such dehumanisation).<br /><br />Following this, there should be an immediate move to reevaluate Australia's interpretation of Human Rights, and its primacy over civil rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission should make an effort to study the Australian National Anthem (in particular the notion of being "free"), and find in it clues towards the importance of freedom over good intended regulation that does not concern human rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission should also study the Australian Constitution, in particular the preamble ("The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth..."), in order to rediscover the limitations and roles of the Australian Government. They should immediately recognise that its roles do not include the enforcement of belief systems on the Australian population (regarding the nature of sexuality, religion, politics, age, disability or otherwise), else we risk establishment of a totalitarian state. With the protections of our citizens against dehumanisation, it is proposed that the desired outcome of universal respect will come of its own accord.</i><br />
<b><br />Follow-up communication:</b><br />
<br />
<i>... It should be evident that human rights are intrinsic: they are both absolute and eternal. They are completely independent of what a people vote for or what a legal system upholds. Some of the greatest crimes in history are committed when we do nothing. I suggest that the Australian government (and their Human Rights commission) act of its own initiative to solve the problems I (and other nations) have identified, irrespective of their current legal status...</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Statistics:</b><br />
<u><br /></u>
<u>7.9% of men and 19.7% of women had suffered some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 18.</u><br />
The prevalence of child sexual abuse in community and student samples: A meta-analysis<br />
Noemí Peredaa, Georgina Guilerab, Maria Fornsa, Juana Gómez-Benitob<br />
Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 29, Issue 4, June 2009, Pages 328-338<br />
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735809000245<br />
<br />
<u>33.6% of girls, 15.9% of boys had suffered some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 16. (for extreme cases: 12% of women, 4% of men). There was a consistent 30% chance of child sexual abuse for females over 40 years (1960 to 2000)</u><br />
Is child sexual abuse declining? Evidence from a population-based survey of men and women in Australia<br />
Michael P. Dunnea, David M. Purdie b, Michelle D. Cooka, Frances M. Boyle c, Jake M. Najmand<br />
Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 141-152<br />
<u><br /></u>
<u>28% of girls and 9% of boys. Over 90% of abusers were men, the girls experiencing mainly heterosexual advances. 24% of abusers were strangers compared with 76% known to the children.</u><br />
The prevalence and nature of child sexual abuse in Australia.<br />
Goldman, Ronald J.; Goldman, Juliette D<br />
Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage & Family, Vol 9(2), May 1988, 94-106.<br />
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1989-19287-001<br />
<br />
Which part of the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with these statistics? What commission has been established to resolve this problem?<br />
<br />
Does the Australian Government think that their failure to protect Australian citizens against dehumanisation has not resulted in child abuse? What about all of the child abuse Australia has outsourced to the third world? What about all of the Australian Government employees who use young women and pay for their sexual objectification?<br />
<br />
Get real. Take action. Deal with it.Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-79615378184291619922012-10-24T06:15:00.001-07:002012-12-06T11:19:01.286-08:00Lori Ann and Corey Cole: Rogue to RedemptionLori Ann Cole and Corey Cole, the creators of the Quest for Glory series, a ground breaking adventure and RP game from the early 90s, are great supporters of critical analysis.<br />
<br />
See some of my comments on their forums;<br />
<br />
<b>Global Energy</b> (<a href="http://www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/784/global-warming-%E2%80%93-what-if-we%E2%80%99re-wrong/#comment-1298">www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/784/global-warming-–-what-if-we’re-wrong/#comment-1298</a>);<br />
<br />
Our response here should be independent of the reality of climate change and its human influence.<br />
<br />
The fossil fuel supply is limited. Currently, it is the only source
which can fuel jet aircraft (based on its high chemical energy to mass
ratio), meaning it will retain a high military value for some time. In a
few hundred years fission fuels required for 20th century nuclear power
plants will become rarer (uranium), meaning the only long term option
is nuclear fusion (hydrogen/helium). Fortunately our supplies are
plentiful. For early generation fusion, this will constitute Deuterium
(extractable from sea water) and Tritium (breedable in fusion reactors),
and then Helium 3 (requiring potentially moon harvesting – although
providing an even cleaner alternative). It will be thousands of years
until either sources are depleted.<br />
<br />
With respect to environmental safety; in all designs, there is no
probability of melt down (stopping the reaction basically involves
switching off the power). The radioactive half lives of first generation
fusion power by-products are orders of magnitude less than that used in
fission power (they naturally decay x1000 faster, meaning they do
not stay radioactive for thousands of years). Hydrogen bombs use the
same process, which for reference are 1000 times as powerful as an
atomic bomb (uranium/fission), like that which was dropped on Hiroshima.
The main task of scientists today is to harness nuclear fusion in a
controlled manner (effectively creating a star on earth). The two main
projects working on this at the moment are ITER (based upon a Russion
Tokamak design / magnetic confinement), and LIFE (laser inertial
confinement, promoted by the US at the National Ignition Facility).<br />
<br />
Atomic hydrogen constitutes 90% of the visible universe, and helium
nearly 10%. Fusion is the primary source of energy in the universe.
Massive stars are kept from internally imploding as a result of nuclear
fusion: all stars 30% or greater than our own would collapse and become
black holes [/neutron stars], instead of becoming shining power plants for billions of
years. In the case of our sun, nearly 50% of the age of the universe. It
heats the earth to provide wind and wave power, and of course feeds
solar cells directly. Heavy elements including those used in fission
power plants are known to be the by-products of supernovae, and
therefore a result of nuclear fusion. Elements heavier than iron
actually take energy to join, and give energy when split – the opposite
of fusion. Perhaps tidal energy is an to the rule exception, but even
that is affecting the moon’s orbit.<br />
<br />
Right now, the world is governed by those who think the 1960s was the
peak of human ingenuity and scientific progress. If human climate
change is both real and negative, then I couldn’t imagine a worst state
of public opinion (mass conformity to a futile ideology). Individual
efforts in 1st world countries are not going to solve the problem (apart
from making us feel good – hence the morality). Wind mills are not the
solution. There is a reason people don’t use “renewable” energy –
economics. One has to solve the economic problem; making it both viable
and competitive. This means funding research and education.<br />
<br />
Links:<br />
<a href="http://www.iter.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.iter.org/</a><br />
<a href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/" rel="nofollow">https://lasers.llnl.gov/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Personal Freedom</b> (<a href="http://www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-1926">www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-1926</a>);<br />
<br />
Maybe this is why their games are so good- because they don’t always
share the same concerns as each other and are able to
represent/integrate their synthesis. The truth of any matter is able to
address all concerns...<br />
<br />
Regarding the classification of personal freedom. The fundamental
issue is not abortion/birth control; it is both rape and why women are
assumed the burden to control pregnancy themselves. Interestingly
enough, there is a common basis – and it is not human nature, however
suggestible the subconscious may prefer to remain. Rather it is
artificial – a by-product of misrepresentation called objectification.
It is not evolutionarily advantageous for a woman to admit failure in a
man. Neither is it evolutionarily advantageous for a man to concede
weakness or damage, and so women are left with the result. Hence the
common conclusion that these issues (which represent the mitigation of
the result) belong to women and are framed under such terms, despite the
fact their implications obviously go beyond mature female organisms.<br />
<br />
...continued (<a href="http://www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-2210">www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-2210</a>);<br />
<br />
I didn't have any problems with the article as it was obviously bi-directionally biased. That is actually what I found so constructive about it.<br /><br />Have people given up trying to articulate the division which besets them? Or perhaps they are such great believers in sexual equality (as long as they can retain their fantasies) that they have dismissed all purpose in a conversation that extends to the opposite gender.<br /><br />To say that people are against women or exclusively homosexually orientated individuals is absurd, and am surprised anyone has fallen for that semantic trap. And this is exclusive homosexuality albeit whose representation in the animal kingdom has yet to discovered- if indeed it is a natural phenomenon. It is interesting that republicans have the dignity to take such nonsense in their stride - rather than declare an equally absurd war on baby girls. They just don't believe that truth is democratic. <br /><br />Yet any discrepancies in conclusion (or vote as the case may be) signifies a real and present information gap. Why on earth have we failed to address this? What is causing people to feel threatened? Is it perhaps that they have failed to identify the basics- and they are trying to solve the inevitable consequences thereof without realising that their mission is impossible? That any human gain in one hand will result in the sacrifice of another? Is it not that in mutual error we have lost trust in the other? That is what happens when you start to tolerate dehumanisation.<br /><br />It is fair to say that when a nation classifies the objectification of a human being as artistic freedom of expression they have given up on logic entirely.<br /><br />
<br />
They currently have a <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1878147873/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption">Kickstarter campaign</a> going for game development on Hero-U(niversity): Rogue to Redemption.Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-21589520854945266152012-09-08T21:10:00.000-07:002012-09-13T22:48:43.183-07:00War on women: the final solutionSurely there are better ways to solve problems than striving to terminate all inconvenient less-than-human life forms?<br />
<br />
Yet what is anyone actually doing to solve anything? Republican or Democrat? These are serious problems in and of themselves;<br />
a) psychological abuse<br />
b) physical assault<br />
c) unintentional relations<br />
<br />
Outsourcing our financial and sexual problems to third world countries doesn't count.<br />
<br />
As men and women's mutual liberation from labour is the result of technology, so is our freedom to choose our role in society. <br />
<br />
Yet movement forward (however circumstantial the terminology) does not consist of mass dehumanisation*, and cannot come at the expense of this. <br />
<br />
One cannot mentally write-off their opportunity of ever being respected out of free will. Are women still being paid to be silent?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">*</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">objectification</span></span> Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-70278190261681606762012-08-19T19:59:00.003-07:002012-08-19T22:51:04.588-07:00The love of money is the root of all evils<h1>$£€</h1>Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-34717780073403913722012-07-20T06:59:00.001-07:002014-09-02T17:34:25.240-07:00Natural Science and PhilosophySome comments posted recently;<br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>New Humanist</b> (<a href="http://newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge">http://newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge</a>);<br />
<br />
Agreed. But the problem is unfortunately on both sides. We need to separate philosophy from natural science.<br />
<br />
Materialism is a philosophical position, and not a scientific one. Let's state our terms and run with them. Clearly.<br />
<br />
Here are some starting points for those concerned;<br />
<br />
- There is no empirical evidence for two universes, let alone an infinite number of them. Furthermore, if another universe is non-observable by definition, then it can and will never constitute a scientific hypothesis. There are thousand year old debates regarding first cause, predictive power, observed-to-predicted-number-of-elements-ratio; all far more advanced than your average "cosmology" pass off.<br />
- don't down play zombie arguments. Just because we have no less reason to believe another person than ourselves on this matter, doesn't mean that the logical possibility is beyond rational thought. Find a monkey that doesn't believe in itself. An evolutionary by-product to benefit our survival perhaps - but we all believe in it - yes believe.<br />
- observed probability in nature is not equivalent to "random chance" (this is a subtle but real philosophical position) - and we certainly don't have any "random chance" without law - we have zero chance<br />
- we have no reason to accept the scientific method applied without first accepting non-physical abstract objects (logic included) - again this speaks against philosophical manipulation of scientific theory that claims to be able to prove otherwise (circles are real)<br />
<br />
And for the people who probably won't read this blog;<br />
- The book doesn't say it all happened at once<br />
- and I would swear it mentions something about a light, and an alternative cosmological principle - the modern one<br />
<br />
I like to think that if you didn't have philosophical absurdity paraded as science, then you wouldn't have "creationism".<br />
<br />
<b><br />The Daily Beast</b> (<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/how-the-higgs-boson-posits-a-new-story-of-our-creation.html">http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/how-the-higgs-boson-posits-a-new-story-of-our-creation.html</a>);<br />
<br />
<i>Science and Philosophy;</i><br />
<br />
: Excuse us, but the author is quite mistaken. This is science not philosophy. <br />
:: Philosophy is just science for people too lazy to do experiments and research.<br />
::: No science relies upon philosophical presuppositions like causality, logic, and the empirical method (it cannot hypothesise regarding that which cannot at least in theory be disproved by observation).<br />
<br />
<i>Paranormal Activity;</i><br />
<br />
If paranormal activity could be documented in a repeatable fashion, then
it wouldn't be paranormal - it would constitute scientific data. <br />
<br />
But you raise an interesting question regarding that which cannot be
confirmed by empirical method. Is sense of self only physical (an
evolved belief to benefit our survival), or does our brain's belief in
itself as an observer correspond (map) to something else beyond neural
activity? If you think this is a silly question, then add it to your
presupposition list.<br />
<br />
<i>Mythology;</i><br />
<br />
Monkeys don't wake up in the morning and decide to wear ties. Things
take time. Generally the reason this has involved religious belief, is
the same as that why we prefer not be monkeys. Even the Greeks came to
their systems of values in this way. Mythology laid the groundwork for
modern civilization. Yet even civilization is not everything it is cut
out to be.<br />
<br />
<i>"God" as a definition;</i><br />
<br />
"God" is generally defined as the cause of the universe, or the "first
cause" as Aristotle put it. I believe he claimed an infinite regression
of causes implies there is no cause.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>"Why We Believe in Gods" - Andy Thomson - American Atheists </b>(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg</a>);<br />
<br />
The physical development of mind and its corresponding time scales, being viewed from a human perspective, are otherwise irrelevant and cannot be used to judge/negate intentionality in creation/evolution. The 'hijacking' of such evolutionary developments [by religion] is therefore quite possible. Yet human civilisation and culture (including the speaker's tie) are perhaps more profound examples of the hijacking of evolved cognitive processes, including in particular those related to our sense of selfRichard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2147782000909598484.post-72178151051311706942012-07-11T13:44:00.002-07:002012-07-11T14:11:45.810-07:00The parable of the frogA frog visits a new tadpole bowl and thinks all of the young frogs there are insane. This view doesn't take too well- Of course the young frogs do their statistical calculations and discover its opinion must be incorrect- it doesn't represent the majority. Democracy runs well in this bowl, and they pride themselves on it. What could be more sick and unfavourable than an unpopular opinion? Why, reason is against it - how couldn't it be?<br />
<br />
Some of the more meditative of frogdem can't seem to work out, why are all of the tadpoles dying? Frenzies break out religiously. Other frogs are even throwing out their eggs. A tadpole beats its chest saying to itself I am a terrible tadpole - I can't seem to swim right - it's all my fault.<br />
<br />
Had they not realised frog induced bowlal warming had brought temperatures literally out of this water. The environmental management brought by their civilisation- the ancient pod we revere them- was naught to be seen. In fact, they had evolved at lower temperatures than this.<br />
<br />
What would Frogger do? That is not the question. It is what would he..Richard Bruce Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193035277663124080noreply@blogger.com0