Some Pro-Life groups like to posit a character to represent the evils of abortion.   She's a young woman having  frequent casual sex, who, finding herself pregnant, carelessly trots to an abortion clinic to kill the baby.

They hate this imagined individual, and want us to hate her.  They believe that banning abortion will make her behave "morally", or possibly no longer exist.  

I don't hate her.  I feel sorry for her.  Why is she so careless with her health and safety?  Does she enjoy her sexual encounters, or is she doing it for survival?  Does she not have access to birth control?  

I think abortion is a tragedy, and it would be nice if the procedure was never needed.

But, banning it won't change anything for the people who have sought it.

They will still be lost, or confused, or frightened, or abused, or struck by a medical disaster.   They will still need help.  

I believe that addressing poverty, mental illness, medical access, and education issues will not only reduce the use of abortion, but help society in general.  It's a solution that does not require judgment or hate. 

Can we try that?

 

.

 

 

 

 
Much has been said about how bad virginity cult is for women's mental health, but I want to take a look at how it really messes with men's heads as well.

Virginity cult is easily traceable to Patrilineal societies, where knowing the father of a child is critical to the passing of property and power.  Virginity becomes a Virtue because it is the most certain way to knowing paternity.   

For a man in such a Patriarchal culture, potential sexual partners are divided into two groups.  There are Good Girls, who are welcome in society, and can command respect, and there are Whores who are pariahs, and not worthy of respect. 

The difference between these two groups is that one has been touched by a penis.  That's all.  Touch a Good Girl with a penis, and *poof*, she's a Whore.  Even if she didn't want the touch.  While it's not overtly stated, the internalized message for men is this:

PENISES ARE CURSED.

The curse can be abated by a religious ceremony.  After the Wedding ceremony, he can touch her with his penis, and she changes from a Good Girl into a Good Woman.   But, the penis curse is still active.  Any other woman the man touches with his Cursed Object still becomes a Whore.  If any other Cursed Object touches the Good Woman, *poof* she's a Whore again.  The curse is that powerful.

What a terrible head trip.    A part of his body that ought to be a source of intimacy and fun is a metaphysical deadly weapon.  Wanting to have sex with a woman is the same as wanting to defile her.   It's no wonder this culture generates abuse.  

Looking at Patriarchal culture in the light of this superstition explains some things, though.

It's what makes "Fuck you" an insult.

It's why women in politics get rape threats. (and men don't)  The threat is not about sex, it's about destroying her ability to command respect through use of the Cursed Object. 

This also explains the Patriarchal view that lesbians are hot, but gay men are not.  Two Good Girls having sex with each other are not defiled, not matter how lascivious they get.   But... if a Cursed Object touches another Cursed Object... do they curse each other?  Does it set up feedback for an Ultimate Curse?   Might it defile the entire world?  

It can be the cause of violence against trans women.   What the superstitious man thought was a harmless Whore turns out to be concealing a Cursed Object.  

And, to drift a little from the topic of how this twists men's thinking, this idea is also where TERFs come from.  They are so afraid of the Cursed Object,  they believe even surgery can not remove the curse.

 

.

One of the yeasts in this horrible brew is the concept of being "tough on crime".

It's a convenient political stance, because nobody is really FOR crime.  So, it's politically safe, and sounds good in a political campaign.

Most voters don't really look deeply into the histories of the people they vote for.  We make judgements about an elected official's character like personal associations, rather than assessing a them as someone applying for a job (which is what they really are).   We don't want to do the tedious work of rational evaluation, and tend to respond with our "gut feelings".

Anything that leads voters to get a positive "gut feeling" and not look any deeper will get the votes.

To be "tough on crime", a candidate must show people two things, crime, and toughness.  So, the proper use of police as Keepers of the Peace won't do.  If nothing bad happens, how can they be seen to fight it? 

Chiefs of police, Mayors and Governors, for decades, have been deliberately telling their officers NOT to de-escalate situations.  More arrests keeps the votes.  "Look!  Crime!  And we're getting tough on it!"   The fact that most of it is just noise, and doesn't solve or prevent crimes is shoved aside.  Exciting, highly visible arrests to get that "gut approval" keeps people in office better than the un-glamorous process of investigating and solving real law enforcement issues.

There is no evidence that getting "tough" reduces crime rates.  There is plenty of evidence that it reduces effectiveness of law enforcement.  It burdens the legal system with junk arrests that wind up being dismissed.  It also leads to bad cops staying in the system, because they're happy to make showy and pointless arrests.  It leads to distrust in the system.
 
The last, and fatal flaw is that this only works so long as majority voters aren't the ones getting arrested.   That positive "gut feeling" is only generated if the "criminals" fit popular stereotypes.   Getting "tough on crime" always means "getting tough on minorities".  Catering to the stereotypes reinforces the prejudice.   The average, comfortably lazy voter sees multiple images of minorities being arrested, and it settles in their mind as "these people are criminal".   After all, there's the evidence, right there on the news. 

Which leads us to our current dumpster fire.  Elected officials interested only in keeping their position, rather than serving their constituents, have been doing terrible things for short term gains.   They've been screwing the future. 

Remember this when you vote.  Don't just vote in the National elections, vote in the local ones.  Pay attention, look more closely.  Don't let this amoral shell game continue. 

.
Metacognition.

The ability to think about how you think.
Some people seem to lack that.

We've all seen it.  Someone has concluded that this chair will fit in that car, and is trying to put it in there.  They try through the door, through the hatchback, right side up, upside down, and sideways.  It doesn't fit.  Onlookers can see that it won't fit, and may tell the person so, but they keep trying.

Sometimes this is admired as "determination", but that's not what is going on.   It's difficulty in re-assessing.  This individual is unable to switch from making the chair fit to finding another way to get the chair home.  Sometimes, they will even resort to damaging the chair to follow their initial plan.  The important mental process of, "Could I be mistaken?" is not happening.

Once metacognition clicks in, problem solving can advance. 

Without metacognition, someone who has decided they like a particular person, political party, program or platform will continue to try to make their ideals fit into reality just as ineffectually as the sad case trying to cram a sofa into a smartcar.  They'll look just as stupid, and make as little progress toward their goals.

The ability and willingness to re-assess is crucial to survival.

Is the person you voted for last time still a good choice?  Have they changed?  Have the issues changed?  Are the decisions you made in March still wise in May?

Is your relationship really working?  Has the person you concluded that you love changed?  Have you changed?  Have your needs or their needs changed?

Is the career you chose in high school still a good fit for you?  Does that pile of "collectibles" still have any value?  Is alcohol still a good choice?  Are you sure that Nigerian Prince is honest?

Time to think about what you think.

.

 
Anger is a malfunction.

Something or someone doesn't behave the way we expect, and we become angry.  It never helps.  Stopping to assess the situation, and moving to problem solving, is what is needed.

These people make us angry.  Does it help the situation to be mad at them?  Even if they could see our anger, would it change them?  Probably not.

If we look at this situation without anger, what DO we feel?

I feel pity.  I see that these people are afraid.

They are afraid that the rest of the world thinks like they do.

They despise "poor people".  They are afraid of becoming poor, because that would make them despicable. 

They are afraid of losing "their liberty" because they know how they treat disenfranchised people.  

They see their power and influence fading, and they are terrified, because they only know their own paradigm. 

Perhaps a better response to them would be to try to reassure them that we don't think like they do.  Perhaps we can try to see them as fellow human beings who need our emotional support.  They've gone mad, but they're not rabid dogs.  Hating them won't fix anything.

Getting angry and attacking these people will only more solidly confirm their biases.  They think we want to devour them.  We don't.  All we really want is for them to let us be.

How can we persuade them that the danger is not from us?  What can we do to reassure these people, so they will calm down, and go home?



.

I have been trying to figure out how to explain to a friend why people get so mad at her when she helps.  She thinks people are just ungrateful.  (note: yelling at her to mind her own damn business is not "ungrateful", it's "totally pissed off")

Name changed to protect the guilty, here's a dramatization of  asking Mona to do you a little favor.
-------------------------------

You're hanging out with some friends, and talking about things to do, when Mona mentions that a friend of hers has this big portable grill that ten people could cook on at the same time.  You know a lot of people who think they grill the best burgers, and think it would be fun to have a cookoff in your back yard.

You say to Mona, "Could you ask your friend if I can borrow or rent that grill? I could set up a really fun weekend for everybody!"  She says she will ask.

You and your friends talk about this for a bit.  Everybody has ideas... maybe get a band, or belly dancers, a beer fountain, hire Chef Ramsey, ha ha... not really planning, just tossing ideas around.  Then conversation moves on.

When you get home, you look up all your grill fanatic friends, and tell them about your cookout idea.  They like the idea, and if you can get the big grill, are eager to come have a good time. 

You don't hear back from Mona for a few days, so you text her:

          Have you talked to your friend yet about me borrowing that big grill?

Plans have been falling through, but I found some performers.

          What?  I was asking about that big grill.  Is your friend willing to lend or rent it?

Oh, I spoke to him the next day,  he loves the idea, but he's so busy with this lawsuit about his neighbors' claim that he had sex with their cat, and the jugglers are vegan, but I'm sure we can work it all out, I'm going to look at the grill tomorrow.

          Ok, whatever you're planning sounds interesting, but I need to talk to this guy about the grill.

We're going to look at the grill tomorrow, you can come if you want to

By this point in the conversation, you are filled with a creeping dread.  Who is "we"?  What has Mona been doing and saying in your name?  Did she take all that batting ideas around seriously? Is Chef Ramsey going to turn up in your yard?  Why didn't Mona tell you right away that her friend was willing to lend you his grill?  WHAT IN MIDAS' GOLDEN BUTTHOLE IS GOING ON?

After much texting, and some phone calls, and mysterious paragraphs about her friend's lawsuit, and what really happened with the neighbor's cat, you extract contact information from Mona, and call the guy, now two weeks later.

          "Hello, I'm the person Mona spoke to you about borrowing your portable ten person grill."

"Oh, the grill isn't portable.  It's set in concrete behind my restaurant."

          "I see.  Sorry to bother you then, there has apparently been a misunderstanding."

"So you don't want to rent it after all?  If $2000 for the weekend is too much, we can work something out."

          "No need, it's not really suitable for what I had in mind.  Thanks for your time. Bye."

You disconnect the call with the quivery feeling of having climbed out of an arroyo just before the flood came down.  To make sure you are safe, you send one more text to Mona: I AM NOT HAVING A COOKOFF.  I DO NOT WANT TO BORROW YOUR FRIEND'S GRILL.

Later that night, as you are sinking into exhausted sleep, the full terror strikes you.  Sitting bolt upright, you wonder, what if you hadn't followed up?  What if, not hearing back from Mona in the first place, you simply decided to do something else?

What if she hadn't been stopped...

And Mona wonders why people scream at her.  

------------------





          

Two thoughts just collided in my head.

One:  The crisis of China not wanting our trash any more. We haven't actually been recycling stuff, just selling it to someone else.  Millions of tons of it.

Two: The crisis of landfills filling up.  If you think about it, this translates to "We're running out of holes in the ground." 

Collision results:

If our trash is worth shipping to the other side of the planet, it's worth shipping somewhere closer. 

Like, some place that still has holes in the ground. 

So we can put the carbon back in the ground where it came from.

EXACTLY where it came from.

Commentary:  I don't know if I'm brilliant or stupid this morning.  I'll finish my coffee now.

There's a reason why cis people don't understand what trans people get so upset about pronouns.

I'm here to break that, so we can stop hurting people. 

Now, before you cis types get all defensive, saying, "But I don't mean to be rude, it's just a hard habit to break." let me tell you this.  Misgendering someone by accident makes it worse.

If you have read any of my other posts on social issues, you know that my prescribed cure for ANY ignorant attitudes is to get to know people.  Get out there, meet people, talk to them, and especially, listen to them.  

I have gotten to know some wonderful people, who don't fit any stereotype, he, she, they, mugwump, and more.   I concentrated on using correct pronouns to be polite.   That's the wrong reason to get the pronouns right.   It's not about being "polite".  Listening to trans people talking among themselves, I hear them objecting to pronouns, not because of the implied social role, or a sense of discrimination, but something much deeper. Let's dive.

When we try to understand someone, we look for a point of contact. We do this by asking ourselves how we would feel in a similar situation.

"How would I feel if I wasn't allowed to marry the person I love?"

"What would I do if someone wouldn't hire me because I have freckles, and the courts backed them up?"

"Could I cope if all my tax forms were in braille, and I couldn't get them in plain text because nearly everone else could read braille?"

So, we naturally ask ourselves, "How do I feel when someone calls me by a pronoun I don't identify with?"

But that's the wrong question. 

The cis answer to that question varies from "Can't that idiot see I'm wearing a dress?", to "How dare they call me a girl!"   Most often, though, it's not an extreme reaction. 

But, the trans folks I know feel very deeply about it.  These aren't hysterical people.  They're not the sort to freak out because someone bumped them, or demand free coffee because their name wasn't spelled right.  These are just regular people, who get along as well as anyone else.  Seeing a trans man tear up when he tells how his "supportive" family still refers to him as "she", I have to find the right question. 

When someone tells me I can't fix a car because I'm a woman, they're not denying I'm a woman.  When my doctor dismisses my pain because I'm fat, they're not denying I'm fat.  What similar situation then, can I imagine for transgender?  

Calling someone by a word they know in their soul does not apply to them...

How about, if someone snaps their fingers, or whistles to get my attention, as though I were an animal?

I think that is the right question a cis person should ask themselves about pronouns.

"What if everyone talks to me and about me as though I were a dog?"

That's why cis people don't get so upset by pronouns.  We haven't been treated to a constant background of this sort of treatment.  We get misgendered once in a while, by individuals we can easily dismiss as assholes or idiots.  Trans people have been misgendered constantly, by the entire world.  Even though the message might be "Good dog!" it's still the wrong words. 

Which gets to why doing it accidentally makes it worse.   

Once someone has told you their pronoun, they have basically told you they are not a dog.  If you use the wrong pronoun in the future, even though they keep correcting you, you are essentially saying, "Of course you're a person you cute little doggie!"  

I want to thank all the patient trans folx who put up with my cis shit, you're good friends, I love you all dearly.

I know I'm approaching wisdom, because I feel really, really stupid right now.

.

First, the source of the question.

part one: I complained to my eye doctor about a twitching eyelid.  She asked If there was any pain, and I told her there wasn't.   Examining my eye, she found an eyelash growing downward, scraping across the surface of my eye, causing ulceration and scarring.  She plucked the hair out.  I would have sworn I was not feeling pain, but I felt the relief immensely.  

Part two: I have been diagnosed for years with depression, the symptoms being crying randomly, and lack of motivation or physical activity.

The Question:  I am aware that emotional issues can manifest as physical pain, is it possible for that to work the other way?

In other words, is it possible that my "depression" is actually physical pain from something I am percieving as a mere annoyance, like the eyelash? 


.

 ---
"We have a choice of whether we are hurt by words."

I heard someone say this about an hour ago. 

I see their point... but the idea makes me uneasy.

There are certainly times when it's pretty clear that the speaker did not intend to hurt.   Forgetting that a name or status has changed.  Misreading someone's social flagging. Customary word usage that means something different in another culture.*  Those are cases where there is certainly a choice of whether or not to take offense. 

But, some words are meant to hurt.  They aren't just a slip or an error, they are a deliberate poke.  Surely the choice is different in those cases.  If someone calls me a "***", should I just blow it off?

 I don't think so. The choice would be what to do about the insult,  not whether to be hurt.

This is what bothers me about the idea.   I tell the toxic person not to call me a "***".  They then fall back on, "well, it was your choice to be hurt about it." or "I didn't mean that as an insult, it was supposed to be a joke."  They can then feel righteous, while I have been insulted a second time by being accused of being over-sensitive.

It's the difference between someone making punching motions with their fists into the air, and someone actually punching you.   One, you can laugh at, but the other really does hurt, and you really need to do something about.  At the very least, put that person on your "do not call" list.
 ---

* There was an interesting kerfuffle when a British friend offered to "come 'round and knock you up"

What most people need for home defense isn't a handgun, it's a taser.  I'll tell you why.

A taser won't put a hole in your woodwork.

Very few people who buy a handgun for home defense train with the gun.  (Some of you sensible people do, but most people don't)  So, they're more likely to miss the intruder than hit them.  There's a chance the intruder will take the gun away.


After all, home defense is about making the intruder stop intruding.  They don't have to die to do that, laying down and twitching is just as good.  Plus you don't have to pay for having the carpet cleaned by a special hazmat crew.

If your nosy teenage kids try to impress their friends by showing off your weapon, there's less likely to be a tragic ending.

Certainly, there are special cases, and individuals who have special security needs, but these people have access to tools and training.

For the average suburban homeowner who just wants a weapon for home defense, a taser is much more practical.

Besides, it's quieter, and won't get complaints from your neighbors.

IT'S HATE SPEECH!




IT'S HATE IMAGERY!

I have been seeing videos of people behaving badly being shared "to shame the bad people".  The preacher who burst into a children's storytime to rail about transgender; the lawyer in the coffee shop yelling at someone not speaking English; the woman attacking a black teenager at the swimming pool.
These videos are a trick to keep thoughtful people inactive.  We feel like we have done something by posting a negative response to these.  What is really happening, is that images of these behaviors are being seen by more people.  The masses of individuals who don't think deeply just see the video. That's what sticks in people's minds.  The negative commentary doesn't.
You know this, if you think about it.  YouTube is full of idiots imitating stunts badly, and making their own versions of popular videos.
Sharing or commenting on hateful videos SPREADS THE HATE.
Don't post, share or comment on these videos.  Report them, flag them, take them down.
We're being tricked into promoting evil.

Stop now!

 

Why everyone should read Uncle Tom's Cabin.

I know, you think you know all about that book. It has been called racist, and Tom has been denounced as servile and weak.

That's not how it is. Those complaints apply to movies and plays based (loosely) on the book. The story that people are familiar with is only a small part of the book, and Uncle Tom is a strong character. Tom was debased for popular consumption in the plays and movies.

It's not racist, it's about racism. This book is nothing less than a top-to-bottom, wall-to-wall expose of the institution of slavery in the US.

To understand the motives behind this book, it's important to understand some things about the time. Citizens were not divided sharply into Pro-slavery and Abolitionist. Most people were ambivalent about it. Slavery had been a part of their lives since birth. It was the basis of large sections of the economy. It had the glaze of normalcy that familiarity brings.

Abolishing slavery was an intimidating prospect. Even some slaves were anxious about such a large change. There was a possibility that "freedom" meant starving to death, because there would be no work, and no place to live.

The closest thing in the US today to the slavery debate is animal rights. On one extreme, we have people who see animals only as a resource. On the other extreme, we have vegans, who think we should not use animals at all. Most people are somewhere in between, having varying views along the lines of, "At least we should treat them well."

This is similar to how many people felt about slavery at the time. There was much discussion about laws to protect the welfare of slaves. Many apologists insisted that the cruelties described by Abolitionists were rare exceptions, and most slaves were well treated.

Harriet Beecher Stowe got fed up with it, and wrote this book.

She starts with Uncle Tom, who is in the situation apologists consider "ideal" for a slave. His position is more that of "old family retainer", than "property". He has been treated well all his life, and has had religious teaching. (This is the Victorian Era, remember, and Ms. Stowe, as a Christian, is concerned about the soul) Tom has helped raise the family's children, and has fatherly feelings toward them. They return this familial affection. Even though they are grown now, they still go to Tom for advice, as though he really were their Uncle.

At one point, the master of the house sends Tom into town to conduct a business transaction. He gives Tom a large sum of cash, and a pass. Tom does the business and returns. Other slaves ask him why he didn't run away. Tom, while he is intelligent, is not given to deep introspection, so all he can reply is, "It wouldn't be right."

This scene is what detractors of the book use to make "Uncle Tom" an insult. They claim that Tom is saying that slavery is "right", and he knows his place. Stowe makes it quite clear that this is not the case. Tom is an honorable man. He was entrusted with a task, and did not betray this trust. Besides, running away would mean abandoning his lifelong home and his family, to go somewhere strange, where he may or may not be able to find a place. These strong emotional ties were important to him.

The trouble starts when Tom's master gets into a financial bind, and sells him. Oh, he has every intention of buying him back, once he has straightened things out, and has sold Tom to a friend who promises to take good care of him. But, the reader knows this is not going to happen.

This is the beginning of a spiritual journey for Tom, who, while a good man, has never been tried.

Stowe uses this journey to carry us through every aspect of the institution of slavery. She even touches, in a coded Victorian way, upon sexual abuses. Through many stories, she methodically demolishes each argument apologists used to say slavery could be made "ok" through protective laws. She points out that, no matter how much affection or respect there may be between people, the simple fact that one has a financial value to the other poisons the relationship.

Step by step, Stowe exposes all the hidden workings of the industry of slavery. The cruelties are more emotional and spiritual than physical, and there are plenty of them. She keeps the story interesting, but includes a lot of sentimental Victorian tropes, such as the "child too good to live". If you like Victorian writing, you'll love these parts.

She gets in a dig at Northern Abolitionists who are terribly racist, and makes some rather pointed feminist remarks along the way. She shoots down the idea that slaves are somehow less than human, and don't suffer the way "real people" do, with the story of Eliza stealing her son and escaping with her husband to Canada.

Eventually, Tom winds up in the deepest pits of slavery, a cotton plantation. Here slaves are literally worked to death. After all the hidden cruelties heaped upon each other, it's almost a relief to get to someplace where it's out in the open, and easy to see. Then Stowe slams her readers with the ultimate horror.

These poor souls have had no religious teaching at all. When they die, their suffering will not be over, because they will be condemned to Hell.
(I know most of you aren't Christian, but remember that, to Harriet Beecher Stowe, and her culture, this was all very real, and a genuine horror.)

I highly recommend reading this book. It became a best seller for good reasons.

Biologists have studied the Human body in incredible detail.  We have solved many puzzles of how our bodies work. Some things are still mysterious.  Nobody is sure quite how emotions, values, and faith are stored in the brain, or how they manifest in the body.  There is one thing, though, that has been well established.  Melanin content in the skin has no connection to emotions, values or faith. 

There has never been any case of someone's skin becoming lighter or darker because of changes in their personal values.  Nobody has ever changed color from getting religion.  Committing crimes does not change the color of anyone's skin.  Volunteering for charity work does not affect it.  Getting a tan will not make someone become violent.  Staying indoors and becoming very pale will not make someone smarter or kinder.  Insanity doesn't change one's complexion.  Skin color does not reflect ANYTHING about a person's intelligence, emotions, values or faith.

That is a fact.

In a culture that will not accept that, something does happen.  Someone with a different color of skin will have had a different experience in the culture.  So, they are likely to have a different outlook on life, perhaps even a sour one.  But, that's not because of melanin.  It's because of asshats. 

Re:  Climate change, and Human response to it.

It's like my Dad. Doctors, friends, and even total strangers told him, "stop smoking, or it will kill you." He didn't. He said it was too hard to quit.  Finally, after a massive heart attack and triple bypass surgery, lying in a hospital bed, the surgeon standing over him said, "If you smoke any more, this will happen to you again, and I won't be able to save you." My Dad stopped smoking.   Evidently, it wasn't too hard to quit, after all. 

 I'm afraid it's going to be like that all the way. We know what we need to do. But, none of us really want to. Corporations think of the expense, individuals think of the inconvenience. We have the ability, but probably won't get serious about it until irreversible damage is done, and Nature smacks us down hard.  

Pseudoscience and antiscience are ways of ignoring the obvious.  I'm sure my Dad told himself that people were overreacting to bad press about the dangers of smoking.  He probably told himself that he was an exception, and would be fine.  Probably, with each pack of cigarettes, he thought, "I'll quit soon, before anything bad happens, but right now, I really need this."  He would got through the motions of quitting, without really quitting, and tell himself that at least he tried.

Humans.  For such an intelligent species, we can be awfully dumb.

I swear the Smith's I shop at is on the edge of another dimension or something. 

For instance,  I can always find a parking place near the door and a cart corral, even when they're busy.  They always have one or two marked down jars of gefilte fish on the clearance shelves, although I have never seen a new jar anywhere on the regular shelves.  Little things like that.

Today this happened.

I heard people talking in the next aisle.  Voice 1 sounded like an older woman.  Voice 2 sounded like a teen or twenty something guy.  Voice 3 sounded like a middle aged woman.

Voice1:  Oh, hello there!
Voice 2: Umh... hi...
Voice 3: Who was that?
Voice1: He's one of my pupils.
Voice3: *laughs* Is that where the scar came from?
Voice 1:  Yes, it is.

I decided I really wanted to see these people, and maybe talk to them.  By the time I got to the end of the aisle, there was nobody there but a man stocking cans of corned beef hash.  He looked too old to be Voice2, but who knows?  So, I asked him where the Gefilte fish is.  He told me they don't carry it.

He wasn't Voice 2. 

I had a very good counselor who told me this about memories that aren't confirmed by other family members:
__________________
If we could wind back your memory like a film, we might not find a scene that exactly looks like what you remember. That's how it is for everyone's memory about everything. BUT, we would find that your memory is consistent in emotional content. Your memory of the location or the date or other small details may be inaccurate, but casting will be correct. Who the abuser was, and what sort of abuse it was will be accurate.
 
Our memories are how we move through life, and we get the gist of people right, because it can be important to our survival. Whether it happened in the back yard or on your Grandmother's sofa is not relevant. 
 
False memories do happen, but they take a lot of work to create. The cases you may have heard of are made with hypnosis, heavy medication, and a bad shrink trying to force their patient to dig up supposedly repressed memories that may not even be there. They don't jive with other memories, and usually can't be made to fit into any reasonable time or space. 
 
Memories that you recover yourself, you can trust. They're not so much repressed, as you just don't think about them. When you are emotionally ready to deal with them, they surface on their own. Or, they don't. It's okay either way.
_____________
At least, this is what I remember her saying...

Here is why it is important to pay for certain types of personal interactions. Sex*, psychic readings, counseling, and other non-material exchanges.

We never do these things for free, really. When we do these things with friends, it is part of our ongoing exchanges of friendship. It's not tit-for-tat like a commercial exchange, but the recognition of value given and received is there.

When we do these things with strangers, the recognition of value given and received is represented by an exchange of money or other material goods. This closes the interaction, so that nothing else is owed. The provider and the client can go on their separate ways. They may never meet again, and that's okay.

You can probably guess what brings this up for me today. Someone tried to get a free reading, using the argument that, "It's a gift you should share with the world."

No.

If I was a magical healer, then, yes, I would go around doing it "for free", because it would be making the world around me a better place to be in. But, giving that individual a free reading is not going to improve the world around me. Especially since they don't seem to appreciate the value of it, so will probably not heed the advice given anyway. It would be like healing someone's cirrhotic liver so they could keep drinking.

On top of that, I was not at all interested in being their friend.


*meaning one person doing sex for another person. Not a "one night stand" situation where someone does sex in exchange for sex.

Geez... I keep thinking about this.  I don't know if the original post is real or a hoax, but I have heard similar arguments in other places.  The line that keeps getting me is "God doesn't need a reason to punish you."  That's not a new idea, and goes back at least to the Puritans, and probably farther.
It's another case of not thinking the idea through.  If a parent punishes a child without reason, we call it abuse.  My father did that do my brother and to me.  We left.  He died without seeing either of us again. 

But, beyond that, is the idea that "You're bad, so you must be punished."  This rationale, carried to its logical extreme, led to the Holocaust.  The combined idea that people can be instrinsically evil, and that evil must be punished leads inevitably this way.

I'll address punishment first.  What is punishment about?  What's it for?  It is meant to modify behavior.  A parent punishes a child for doing something dangerous, because they really don't want the child to do that thing again.  A city punishes you with a fine for parking in a no parking zone, because they really don't want you to park there.  It's about changing what the person being punished does.  Therefore, punishment has a reason, a purpose for the target of the punishment.

Now, intrinsic Evil.  "Badness" as a physical trait.  I have trouble even picturing it.  I can understand bad behavior, maybe even a habit of bad behavior, but "badness" as something inbred?  How would someone observe this, how to you measure it?  Surely such a creature would never be able to do anything good, even by accident.  Would undesirable behavior count as Evil, or just destructive acts? Is playing loud music at 2AM evil, or just rude?  Is rudeness "bad", or just annoying?   It's a nonsensical concept.  And, it is not the basis of the concept of Original Sin.  That concept is not that "Man is naturally evil", it is the concept that "Man is flawed, and therefore bound to screw up.".  Original Sin is the idea that, no matter how good we are, we will sin from time to time, because we're not perfect.   So...no person is just naturally "bad".

But, for the sake of the original problem, let's suppose that it's possible.  Here is someone who is just naturally, by the fact of their existence, Evil.  Will punishing them change that?  If they are innately "bad", can they change their behavior?  NO.  Punishing a lion for eating meat will not make it a vegetarian, it will just make it a neurotic lion.  So, is there any point to punishing someone for their innate sinfulness?  No. There would be no reason to think that punishment would change their behavior.

The only reason to do something like that would be an evil reason... creating suffering for selfish personal gratification.*    I think we can all agree that doing that is BAD.

*BDSM is a different dynamic, it isn't selfish, for one thing.

Someone recently asked me, "Why is it so IMPORTANT to you that people believe in evolution?"

I had to think about it a bit, because it's not really a matter of belief. But, I do have an answer for him.
________________________________________________________

There's a difference between believing something that there is no evidence for, and refusing to accept facts there are plenty of evidence for.

Faith is not the same as deliberate ignorance. The fact of evolution does not preclude a belief in God.

As an example, suppose you believe that the arrangement of the metal rails of a train track are just right to provide positive chi vibrations. So, you might believe that standing between the rails will fill you with these vibrations.

Ok, there's no evidence of that, but there's nothing to contradict it, so I won't argue with you. I will, however caution you to watch for trains while you get your vibes.

If you then respond that you "don't believe in trains" because you believe the rails were placed there by Aliens, I'll have to argue with you.

I will point out that there is plenty of evidence that the rails were laid by Humans. I will tell you about trains that carry freight across the country. I will warn you that there is a train that runs every Tuesday at 10 am. You might come up with complicated arguments about cover ups or conspiracies, but the rather solid evidence of a train will come and smash you flat on Tuesday morning, no matter how much you "don't believe" in it.

This is how you look to me when you tell me you "don't believe" in evolution.

In order to not accept the fact of evolution, you have to ignore biology, physics, chemistry, and many other sciences. It's not just fossils. All the complicated arguments you tell me confirm your disbelief are not only unsupported by evidence, they are contradicted by it.

The complex set of deductions and observations that are known collectively as "evolution" are facts. Not because some authority or ancient text said so, but because they pass the tests Science demands. They are reproducible, predictable and testable.

Maybe you won't get hit by a train for rejecting all this data. But, the habit of not accepting reality can only lead to eventual disaster.

.