A new meaning to “aping around” [NSFW]

This probably wasn’t something these folks were expecting to see happen.

Yep, it’s Saturday night, all right. Even the monkeys can feel it.

(via Pharyngula)

Technorati tags: monkeys · animal sex · humor · NSFW

Another rant on how not all animal sex is animal abuse

Note: as the title not-so-vaguely indicates, this is a post on bestiality, or sex with animals. If this disturbs or offends you, read no further. If you do, you void your right to complain about the subject matter, as you have been warned.

Okay, I get it. The idea of humans having sex with animals is one that is quasi-universally reviled: it is immoral, it is sin, it is disgusting, whatever. Thankfully, there is still a small number of people who are open-minded and sensible enough to realize that as long as the animal itself is not harmed, then what goes on between it and a human is no-one else’s business, period, no more than any other intimate act with anyone (or anything) else. Unfortunately, people insist on being meddling gits, especially when they’re in charge of upholding (and laying down) the law, which ensures that people who commit perfectly harmless acts upon animals, regardless of how “disturbing” such acts may be to general society, will be vilified, ostracized and generally treated as though they were the worst sort of criminals, despite the fact that they never did, or even would, hurt anyone (or anything). Except people’s precious sensibilities, that is.

I’m not writing this post as a defense of bestiality or sex with animals – frankly, I don’t think it needs one, as I don’t believe it to be an offense, no more than is any other sexual act. Yes, sometimes the animal (or also the human, as is evidenced in the case of “Mr. Hands”) can be injured, but such cases should be treated no more (or less) harshly than any other case of sexual acts leading to injury, intentional or not, regardless of the participants. They also should not be used as an excuse to carpet-ban the entire activity (for lack of a better term) and to criminalize it to the point where having harmless sex with animals is treated as though the animal was abused, harmed, or whatever, when the vast majority of bestiality cases involve absolutely no harm to the animal (and in those that do, the injuries are majoritarily purely accidental and/or unintentional)^[1].

Bestiality is not animal abuse; at least, not inherently, no more than all incest is rape, or all underage sex leads to underage pregnancy. Abuse can happen, of course, but it should not be treated as a defining factor of bestiality as it simply isn’t. If and when a specific bestiality case involves harm inflicted upon the animal, especially if such harm is/was intentional, then yes, of course, the perpetrator is, and should be treated as, an animal abuser, and shall be punished accordingly. But there is no sense in punishing someone if they never caused harm unto the animal(s). It’s an exercise in futility and ridiculousness.

What spurred this brusque little rant out of me, you may ask? A particularly dumbass quote concerning a recent bestiality case, is my answer. Here’s the story: over the course of a dozen escapades since July, 18-year-old Erick Rivera went over to the nearby Goshen Historic Track at night and, well, had some fun with some of the local fillies. All evidence suggests that he never harmed or abused any of the animals he came into contact with. When he was caught after a six-month investigation, he was charged with “sexual misconduct with an animal”, amongst other minor things such as larceny (which I presume is for the bridles he took and used to immobilize the horses in their stalls during his “visits” – again, harmlessly).

And yet, this didn’t stop Goshen police from giving off the usual sort of boneheaded remarks we hear in such cases:

Geekz rool (they totally have their own universe, y’know)

Even though I don’t see myself as a geek (missing the flailing at Star Trek, I only have a casual interest in Star Wars and I’ve never been at (and nor shall I ever go to) a convention in my life), I am a little discomfited by the fact that I recognize just about everything in here:

[Click for full size]

This impressive diagram is courtesy of Ibrahim Evsan. He loses a few points for misspelling Obi-Wan Kenobi and the coolness factor is torn away by his reference to Twilight (not that, of course, a chart about the geekdom ever had any coolness to begin with, hyuk hyuk), but then, what’s even more disturbing is how A) I noticed these and B) took the time to mention them, here. My poor foot now has a little bullet hole. Hurts.

(via Bad Astronomy)

Oklahoma and the law for public abortions

Although the Roe v. Wade ruling grants women the basic right to terminate any pregnancy for any reason they choose (at least until the fetus becomes viable, whereupon waters grow murkier), this doesn’t stop legislatures from imposing all sorts of restrictions, financial or otherwise, to make sure that getting an abortion is generally a pain in the ass. Oklahoma is known for its particularly hostile laws regarding abortion rights, yet it turns out that there’s one law that’s particularly wretched: the one that states that an abortion patient’s information pertaining to why they terminated their pregnancy can be freely posted online on a state website. I just know I’m not the only one who literally said ‘What the fuck?!’ when I read that – has anyone there ever heard of patient confidentiality, for fuck’s sake?

The state of Oklahoma legislature passed a law currently that allows an abortion patient's information as to why they chose to have the procedure to posted on the internet, according to NPR News. After taking a long survey, the answers given will be posted on a state website after the procedure is done. Names will be omitted but to have the reasons why someone is having a routine medical procedure is "intolerable" according to abortion rights activists. Oklahoma has some of the toughest abortion laws in the United States.

On the other side of the aisle, Oklahoma State Representative Dan Sullivan told NPR, "This is not going in to get a wart removed. This is a procedure that ends a human life." He supports the law and says it is valid. Today, the lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights will be heard in Oklahoma County as to uphold a temporary injunction and then a motion to dismiss the law altogether according to CNN.

This is bullshit. A fetus is NOT a human life. It could eventually develop into a human, but it is not a human, yet. It is a shapeless, unfeeling, unknowing and completely uncaring clump of cells, no more biologically important than a blastoma. Merely possessing the Homo sapiens genome is not enough to qualify something as a human being. Every single other characteristic – shape, size, intelligence, emotions, mobility, whatever – is completely absent. It is a human-to-be, nothing more. It is to a human what a seed is to a tree.

Abortion is not murder, and destroying a fetus is not killing a human. Will someone please educate anti-abortionist morons in the government such as this Rep. Dan Sullivan with this simple and obvious fact?

But regardless, the morality of abortion is not the issue at hand, here. The point is that incredibly private medical records, which are reserved for attending doctors’ eyes only, are being posted online for anyone to see, which is completely unacceptable. This is obviously nothing more than a slimy attempt at discouraging women who need to terminate their pregnancy with the threat of having their private ordeal made public. If the legislation wants to stop women from exercising their right to have abortions, they can create an appropriate motion or write a corresponding bill. These sorts of underhand tactics are just cowardly.

(via Fark)

Technorati tags: abortion+rights · Oklahoma · patient confidentiality · medical records · laws · Dan Sullivan

“Does faith make you happy?”

What religion makes you feel like. Also, what religion makes you look like.

This is what the USA Today’s Faith & Reason blog asks of its readers today, after mentioning a CDC study on happiness in the US with results that you can see as being either intriguing, or rather random.

A CDC released a four-year, 1.3 million-person study on happiness: Apparently the happiest Americans are in Louisiana, while the Empire State (N.Y.) is leaving people least satisfied.

The CDC speculates this has to do with things like sunshine hours, congestion, cost of living, air quality and availability of public land. Not on the list of criteria: religiosity.

If you compare the ranking of happiest states to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, is it interesting that New York has almost double the people who report "no religion" as Louisiana (14% vs. 8%)? Or not, since Florida, which ranked third in happiness, tied with New York for "Nones"?

Now, of course, correlation doesn’t imply causation. That some states with more avowedly religious folks are seen as being generally happier than others can very much be completely irrelevant – after all, there are many more things in life that determine whether you’re a happy camper or not, such as personal relations, your job, the neighborhood you live in, and how much time your in-laws spend at your place over the winter holidays.

But, to answer if religion tends to make people happier: I would say that yes, it does, for religious people themselves. After all, religion – chiefly Christianity as it is the dominating branch of faith in the U.S. – gives you the assurance that you know The Truth^TM about the nature and origin of the Universe over any and all other religions and faiths, giving you that nice superiority ego boost; it coddles you up in warm blankets of security in the afterlife, knowing that you’re going to heaven when you die whilst the rest of the sinners will end up frying in Hell (a thought that also seems to elicit a frightening amount of glee with the devout); it tells you that there is an all-powerful and all-knowing daddy floating somewhere in the skies, watching over your life and making sure you’re all blessed and happy (disregarding the fact that your equally-devout neighbor’s house just went up in flames, which must mean he just got caught choking the gecko^[1] one time too many, the filthy sinner); it provides you with endless flocks of sheep that you can follow and make friends with, reveling in how you all know and believe the same things and are taught the same life lessons and stories by pastors and holy men; and, of course, religion even provides you with all the answers to life in ancient, unverifiable, scientifically-debunked sacred writings that were cobbled together by goat-herders in the Middle East thousands of years ago and yet which somehow prove endlessly useful in your modern-day lives, disregarding the fact that you really only choose to follow a relatively small portion of the texts and lessons within.

Religion takes away your view of reality and replaces it with false assurances, false knowledge and a false confidence in life that what you know and do is right, and that anyone who doesn’t believe the same sort of stuff you do is wrong and will end up in whichever variant of a fiery underworld you believe in. It’s the ultimate win-win: you end up with Jesus or virgins or lots of chocolate (if that’s your thing), and your enemies end up roasting for all eternity. What’s not to like?

Of course, what’s curious is that while following a religion tends to make the religious person more happy than otherwise (if only because their head and heart is filled with fluff), religion tends to have the opposite effect on competing faiths, and especially on folks who avoid adhering in any religion at all.

[1] In case you don’t get it: beating the beaver. Flogging the dolphin. Polishing the wand. And so on. (Seriously, how many of these are there?)

Technorati tags: religion · Faith & Reason · USA Today · faith

Friday Canine: I am so gonna lick that camera when I reach it

(via kayotic_02’s Photobucket)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Vox Day and his argumental tunnel-vision

“See? If evolution was real, we’d grow wings and just fly to safety, now!”

The Internet SuperCrank shows how he really doesn’t get all this “arguments” stuff:

Should you ever find yourself pondering the probability of evolution by natural selection being true:

PZ Myers: "Yes, it is quite probable that global warming has a significant anthropogenic component. About as probable as the idea that HIV causes AIDS, species diversity is driven by evolutionary processes, and that the world is round."

For once, I quite agree with the chicken-hearted biologist. The idea that global warming exists and has a significant anthropogenic component IS about as probable as the idea that evolution by natural selection creates new species.

Of course, following this line of reasoning leads us to understand that Vox is also an AIDS/HIV denialist who fears wandering too far out at sea less he fall into the bottomless void beneath the Earth.

Which are totally reasonable things to expect from the likes of him, really.

The Universe and why it’s not a good idea to have a perfect sense of proportion

The known Universe in one word? Simply mind-blowing.

And then, think about how much more we haven’t even begun to glimpse yet … I think I see the appeal of astronomy, even though I’ll die long before I’m able to wrap my mind around a field that’s so unbelievably complex.

“In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.”

— Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

(via The Daily Grail)

Technorati tags: astronomy · science · Universe · American Museum of Natural History · space · videos

What it all comes down to …

This actually explains a lot. About denialists’ mindset, anyway.

“What’s the point in making this a better world if there’s no impending global catastrophe to prevent? Why improve our lives for the sake of improving our lives?”

Anthropogenic global warming isn’t a hoax, or an unsubstantiated scientific hypothesis. It’s a well-established fact that every single accredited and properly peer-reviewed scientist accepts as scientific reality. But, when you think about it: even if it wasn’t so (however exceedingly unlikely that may be) … so what? Could someone please tell me how or why making a better, more cost-efficient world for us all would be a bad thing, regardless of whether it’s spawned by the need to prepare for oncoming climate change or not?

There are lots of socio-political cartoons that get it right, but rarely do they hit the nail right on the head as well as this one does. Kudos to The Real MFG (for finding it).

Edit (11:57 AM): Removed the comic’s attribution to MFG as he points out it isn’t his own.

(via Pharyngula)

Technorati tags: Global Warming · climate change · climate summit · hoaxes · cartoons

Uh-oh! Evangelicals have come up with the ultimate tactic!

Ray Comfort’s attempt at spreading dissent on Evolution throughout American universities by spreading a Creationist version of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species – which I now own (yet have yet to start reading) – arguably failed due to one primary fault: no-one reads textbooks anymore! In order to spread the Word of the Lord, these two daring Aussies decided to go about attracting students with the ultimate bait: beer and porn!

We’re doomed.

(Incidentally: if anyone knows which show this is, I’d like to know.)

(via Pharyngula)

Now that’s some good rant by proxy

Michael Phelps with bong

You probably know all about how Michael Phelps – ie. probably the greatest fucking swimmer of all time, if his insane number of records and Olympic gold medals counts for anything – was busted enjoying the mellowy goodness of marijuana now just over a year ago. As expected, he apologized – you know, for doing something completely harmless on his own time, something that no-one else has any business –

Hey, you know what? Screw my little rant. Let’s go with Radley Balko’s, who redacted this “letter from Michael Phelps” which we all would so dearly love to see published in the local newsrag (though we won’t). It’s an oldie but quite a goodie.

Dear America,

I take it back. I don’t apologize.

Because you know what? It’s none of your goddamned business. I work my ass off 10 months per year. It’s that hard work that gave you all those gooey feelings of patriotism last summer. If during my brief window of down time I want to relax, enjoy myself, and partake of a substance that’s a hell of a lot less bad for me than alcohol, tobacco, or, frankly, most of the prescription drugs most of you are taking, well, you can spare me the lecture.

I put myself through hell. I make my body do things nature never really intended us to endure. All world-class athletes do. We do it because you love to watch us push ourselves as far as we can possibly go. Some of us get hurt. Sometimes permanently. You’re watching the Super Bowl tonight. You’re watching 300 pound men smash each while running at full speed, in full pads. You know what the average life expectancy of an NFL player is? Fifty-five. That’s about 20 years shorter than your average non-NFL player. Yet you watch. And cheer. And you jump up spill your beer when a linebacker lays out a wide receiver on a crossing route across the middle. The harder he gets hit, the louder and more enthusiastically you scream.

Yet you all get bent out of shape when Ricky Williams, or I, or Josh Howard smoke a little dope to relax. Why? Because the idiots you’ve elected to make your laws have have without a shred of evidence beat it into your head that smoking marijuana is something akin to drinking antifreeze, and done only by dirty hippies and sex offenders.

You’ll have to pardon my cynicism. But I call bullshit. You don’t give a damn about my health. You just get a voyeuristic thrill from watching an elite athlete fall from grace–all the better if you get to exercise a little moral righteousness in the process. And it’s hypocritical righteousness at that, given that 40 percent of you have tried pot at least once in your lives.

Information is Beautiful Q.E.D.s Global Warming denialist claims

One of the best educational sites out there would have to be Information is Beautiful, where David McCandless takes on any number of controversial, mythical or otherwise popular matters of debate and produces detailed yet elegant – and, well, beautiful – visual representations of the data along with accompanying text and explanations. It’s a wonderful resource for getting the clean and clear facts without having to perform hours of research of your own (because you know that just bites).

Now, McCandless has taken on some of the more prominent claims made by anthropogenic global warming denialists and compared them to the scientific consensus, and uses ample amounts of research data to conclude just which side is blowing smoke out of its ass. I don’t think it’s a surprise that the scientists are the ones repeatedly proven right – I mean, who knew that the guys with the actual knowledge, skills and experience to be experts in their fields would know better than random cranks and pseudo-intellectual malcontents? Shocking, no?

It’s a beautiful dissection of denialist claims, including those such as “CO₂ doesn’t cause temperature rises!” (whereas temperature rises aren’t caused by C0₂ levels, merely exacerbated – greatly – by them), or that “the ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph has been discredited!” (whereas combining all the data we have clearly shows a “hockey stick” formation), or that “ice core data is unreliable!” (when it plain and simply is reliable), or that that – of course – “‘Climategate’ proves scientists are committing fraud and distorting data!” (whereas this is bullshit based on utter misrepresentations of what scientists actually said and meant in those eMails), and so on. It’s actually quite thorough in its way, and very … (running out of alternatives to “beautiful”, here).

Of course, denialist cranks will always find a way to deride these statistics – probably that they’re all fake or something (who knows how their warped minds work anymore) – but for the rest of people who do have some shred of common sense left in their heads, this is a clear representation of just how denialists are plainly and utterly wrong, as they always are, and that the scientific community actually knows what the hell it’s doing whereas denialists … don’t.

(via Bad Astronomy)

Technorati tags: Global Warming · climate change · Information is Beautiful · denialism · David McCandless · science