Only 61.6% Equal

At the moment, my grandmother is in hospital. She is staying with us after she fell down due to chronic bradycardia - her heart wasn't beating hard enough or fast enough and she collapsed when there wasn't enough blood in her brain. She was given a pacemaker as a result, but because of the risk of her heart misbehaving again, she had to go into care.
My mother was willing to become her carer, so she now lives here. However, a few weeks ago, partially due to the fall and partially due to knee surgery in the past, she had exacerbated a kneecap fracture which started to cause her pain and swelled up like a balloon, so she's in hospital with a splint on her leg.

She is okay, in no pain, but she's very very bored. Hospitals are not fun, so we spend time with her when we can to give her something to get her mind off the fact that she's unable to stand up on her own.
Now, I love my grandmother, and I think she's fun to talk to, but I don't like visiting her in hospital because I'm bored too. The only things we can talk about are either how she's healing (which she doesn't like talking about, because it's boring and she doesn't like dwelling in her own fragility), or all the stuff she can't do since she's in hospital (i.e. pretty much everything else). So, we just end up talking about stuff she's seen on TV, current events, or stuff I'm doing.
Last time I went to spend time with her, it was the 10th of November, just three days after the marriage equality postal survey results had been tallied. So, I talked to her about that.

I thought it was interesting, because she said she voted 'Yes', because she think people should just keep to themselves, and also "Now your brother can get married, I guess". I thought that was pretty sweet. She doesn't really "get it", but she did it for her grandkids, that's cool. But, after we spoke about it, she said.
  "But, it is kind of weird, isn't it?"And, I felt kind of sorry for her. No not in the "pity the close-minded fool" way, but more . . . I really couldn't relate. She wanted to understand, and she was being kind by doing the best for the future, her family and her grandkids even though she herself didn't understand how it helped. But, she still didn't "get it", and didn't know how.
To me, homosexuality just is, it's about as weird as blond hair or vegemite sandwiches - but she's in her eighties now, for the vast majority of her life "gay", "faggot", "sissy" and "nancy boy" were abnormalities to be avoided, or insults to be slung at the weak and the pitiful. I wanted to make her understand, but as much as I can sympathize with her confusion, I can't empathize. I never lived that life. So, I just said to her:
  "I can see how it could be weird to you . . . but, to me, it's not that weird. I've grown up with it just being a part of life. I guess that's all it is, another part of life."
I don't know if that was a satisfying answer for her, in fact I'm pretty sure it wasn't, but it's the best I could do.

So, I get that people may have "issues". Maybe it's weird to some people; perhaps some people don't like the idea of their kids being gay & perhaps some people just don't think the definition of marriage is something that ought to be determined by law instead of retroactively non-polygamous religious terms.
These people are all wrong, but at least I can sort of understand where they are coming from. If I squint, I can see what the issue is. But their issue is not my issue. Their issue can be solved by checking out a dictionary. And since that's something I do quite often on this blog, allow me to indulge you. The Word of the Day is: 'MARRIAGE'

Marriage /'marij/ n. 1. Any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities. 2. a. Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. This institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage. 3. The state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. 4. The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: To officiate at a marriage. 5. A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a marriage, without legal sanction: Trial marriage. 6. Any close or intimate association or union: The marriage of words and music in a hit song. 7. A formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

But, my issue with the recent vote isn't the definition or the political/legal/religious ramifications. See, my issue with this vote was that it was entirely pointless. At the end of the day, do you know what this vote is essentially changing? Time for a minor history/politics lesson . . .
Once upon a time, in 2004, the Marriage Act in Australia was amended specifically to exclude same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage in Australia. Marriage didn't have a legally binding definition before then, so the Amendment redefined marriage as:
  "The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."
And, just to be a dick, even added the caveat of disrecognizing foreign same-sex marriages:
  "A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."

At time of writing, there is a 2017 Marriage Act Amendment Bill going through parliament, supposedly as a direct result of this postal survey. However, ALL that this bill is going to do is change five words to just two:
  "marriage means the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others . . ."
That's kind of it. Apparently, they will also be getting rid of the "same-sex marriages in foreign jurisdictions" line - not that they need to, since it's meaningless by all intents and purposes - and makes allowances for religious celebrants to marry as they see fit.
So, someone added an amendment to the Marriage Act, and we are adding another amendment to remove the effects of that amendment. Cool, but why did we have to spend so much money on this Postal Survey?

Well, it's so that we could finally have the numbers in, right? Isn't that what the survey was for? To determine that we really wanted it? . . . Uh, no.
To begin with, we have known that the majority of Australians have been supportive of gay marriage since 2007. this new result isn't new to me:

• A Galaxy Research poll in Jun, 2007 found a 57% Support Vote
• A Roy Morgan Research poll in Jul, 2011 found a 68% Support Vote
• An Ipsos survey in May, 2013 found a 54% Support Vote
• A Crosby Textor Group poll in Jun, 2014 found a 72% Support Vote
• A ReachTEL survey in Jul, 2015 found a 53.8% Support Vote
• An Essential Research poll in Aug, 2015 found a 60% Support Vote
• A Newgate poll in Sep, 2017 found a 58.4% Support Vote
• A Lonergan Research poll in Nov, 2017 found a 65% Support Vote

The last time we recorded a majority "opposed to marriage equality" vote was the 38% Support, 44% Oppose results found by Newspoll in June, 2004. But, we have known for a damn, long time that most Australians support marriage equality.
Yeah, these numbers fluctuate since they're sample-sizes between 1,000 and 200,000, and they were several years apart in some cases. But, 61.6% . . . this isn't news to me. The numbers fit right into the expected outcomes of every other poll we've had over the last decade.

Okay, sure, maybe we just needed the exact numbers. This is an official, government-sanctioned survey which will affect political outcomes after all, so we need it to be perfect, right?
Yeah, no, that's not true either . . . this was a non-binding postal survey. Do you remember that bill I mentioned, to amend the Marriage Act? The reason it's coinciding with the election results is because of political maneuvering, the actual survey didn't affect it whatsoever. Like I said, it exists to change five words. If the result had been 'No', the bill would have been proposed anyway, because people have been proposing amendments to the Marriage Act ever since they brought in that same-sex exclusive definition, with two separate bills being struck down by the Gillard government in 2011.

So, at the end of all this, after spending over 100 million dollars, what have we gained?

As far as I'm concerned, because I am an incredibly bitter and curmudgeonly sod, all I think we've really gained from this is hardline proof that 38.4% of Australians are Opposed to Equality. Yes, 61.6 is greater than half, more than 50, and that's technically majority; but, 38.4 is greater than a third, more than 33.3. So, over a third of people, when asked if they support same-sex marriage, said No.
Over one-third of the people that live in the same country as me do not believe that people deserve equality. This post is written for those people, because that's the thing that has been bothering me for the last two weeks.
See, even though we've "won" the vote, as it were, these people still exist, and as much as gay marriage proponents would like to think that these people don't matter, and that their discrimination is just impotent rage at this point, they're wrong.

See, do you remember how I mentioned that the law makes allowances for celebrants to marry as they see fit? There is more to that little nugget than I've divulged, and this is part of the Bill which (at time of writing) is currently pending before the Senate.
The Bill proposes to has change the definition of "discrimination" to allow for "ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants and bodies established for religious purposes" to refuse to provide goods, services or facilities for a marriage ceremony.

Not exactly "marriage equality" when you need to change the definition of discrimination to allow religious people to treat same-sex couples differently, is it?

Nobody should have the right to deny anyone their lawful marriage, that's disgusting - and the law even agreed with me, until the government decided to amend those particular laws.

But, you may think that churches and religious organizations should have the right to practice their religion as they see fit. After all, these are sincerely held beliefs, and nobody should have the right to tell a private institution how it should operate.
Now, you might have a point there . . . however, churches are not private institutions. Religious organizations are not private businesses, they are public businesses, because the government decides who and what is a "religion" by granting recognized religious institutions with tax exemptions. Just as the government provides tax exemption to endorsed charities, not-for-profit businesses & culture, health, science and education organizations - churches are granted tax exemption because they are seen as providing a benevolent, public service. The Australian Tax Office even calls such organizations: "Public Benevolent Institutions"
So, if a church is a "public", "benevolent" institution, it should follow the letter of the law in regards to any government-subvented institution, including those which state one cannot discriminate against anyone, due to their gender, race, age or sexual orientation. To do otherwise is nothing less than institutional discrimination.
If we stop granting churches tax-exemption, then maybe I would change my mind, and treat them like private organizations. I wouldn't like it, but they would have a right to discriminate silently, non-violently, privately and passively - just as I would have the right to publicly boycott them for such discrimination.

I don't see how any church can call itself "benevolent", yet continue to inhibit the safe and healthy relationship of two people in love, all based on Bronze Age bigotry, but much more than that, I don't see how our government could condone, and even support it, financially.

But enough about how we should separate Church and State . . .

What I do want to talk about are the people, those private citizens who I do feel have the right to discriminate. I don't agree with thoughtcrime, and I think that it's good to be able to let people voice their opinion no matter what. I even have some controversial opinions regarding people shouting fire in a crowded theatre, I think that it should be protected, free speech.
You have Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Thought.
So, I want to say to you . . . to everyone Australian whom, when they received their Marriage Equality Postal Vote, ticked the box marked 'No'. Or, to those who wished they could have voted 'no', but where from another country or too young. Or, those who are upset at the majority 'Yes' vote. Or, even just to those who marked 'yes' for some reason other than the belief that same-sex couples out to have equality.
To all of you, I say, I disagree with you. But, not because I think you're stupid or simple or evil or cruel. I disagree with you because you're wrong.
That's not just my opinion, it's based on the fact that homosexuality is completely harmless in every sense of the word, and the fact that every argument I have heard in opposition to that claim of harmlessness, or against homosexuality in general, or just the freedom of such to marry, has been scientifically, logically, factually or sociologically wrong.
If you claim that homosexuals are paedophiles, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuality is a sin, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuals all have anal intercourse, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuality is what gives you HIV/AIDS, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuals have a naturally shorter lifespan, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuality is unnatural, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuals can be cured, you're wrong.
And, if you think I am unwilling to listen to your views, you're very wrong.

I am willing to explain my point of view, and I am willing to listen to yours, because I understand that a lot of this comes from fear and loathing, or by being convinced my those who seek to confuse you for their own political or religious ends, or a lack of understanding of the relevant facts.
There do exist people, like my grandmother, who want to understand, but can't find an appropriate format by which to voice their concerns. Either they're worried that they'll be singled out for being "homophobic" or "bigoted"; or, they just don't know the appropriate forum to express their opinions - well, try me. I have a comments section, and other various chatting programs such as Hangouts, Kik & Messenger. You may even try to send me a message through Tumblr.
I only ask that you come with an open mind - and if you want to learn how to do that, my last blog post explained the very simple process of doing that.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and this might seem kind of bitter and negative, but it's just how I feel after this whole Marriage Equality Postal Survey result. I'm sorry if this seems unnecessary to some of you, but the fact of the matter is, when it comes to equality, I don't think that 61.6% is good enough . . .

Skepticism 101: Don't Be Stupid

If you are not a Skeptic, you are an Idiot.

Before I get into the explanation as to why, I want you to think for a moment - how does that make you feel? I just called you stupid, how does that make you feel? Most people, when called stupid, feel insulted. They get annoyed, sad, upset or angry. Even if that particular comment didn't upset you, is that always the case? When someone confronts your intelligence or conflicts with your knowledge, how do you feel, usually? What about when it really matters, or what about if it's something that you care about? Do you usually get upset?

Most people do; some of us do all of the time, but all of us do some of the time. The fact of the matter is, even if you are a skeptic, you are ALSO an idiot. Everyone is an idiot. That’s the point I need to make, we are all simple, flawed humans and we all make stupid mistakes for stupid reasons.
The Word of the Day is: 'SKEPTIC'

Skeptic /'skeptik/ n. 1. A person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 2. A person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. 3. A person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it. 4. (cap.) Philosophy a. A member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible. b. Any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind. ♦adj. 5. Pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.

The basic idea is thus - as we are evolved creatures (just like every living thing), we are primarily motivated by death and sex - kill others before they kill you, and procreate before you die. Our larger brains evolved due to a few random mutations that allowed greater neuroplasticity, excess neuron growth and greater skull capacity. However, these mutations survived because it allowed those of us with these mutation to better adapt to dangers.
The capacity to imagine, to build, to speak - these are not selected for because “gee, wouldn't higher thinking be cool?”. These survived into our current species, because the ability to imagine includes the ability to foresee events before they happen, cooperate with others in our tribe, preempt consequences and plan for the future. This was an evolutionary advantage.
We currently use our brains for all kinds of things, it was not designed for - admittedly, that's because it wasn't designed at all, it was just a beneficial trait because smarter creatures were more careful, and so could live longer.

However, despite this, we still use our lizard-monkey brains for complex processes, from software to surgery to science. Don't get me wrong, due to our brains’ magnificent capacity it is very much CAPABLE of doing all that, but the system is not perfect. Just like using a razorblade as a kitchen knife, sure, it can work perfectly fine, but if you aren't careful, you'll end up with blood in your bolognese.
See, when your main goal is just to survive, “truth” doesn't matter, “truth” is useless.
When you see two eyes staring at you from behind the grass, it doesn't matter if that's actually a predator, or if it's a butterfly with convincing camouflage, because if you run away every time you will always survive. It doesn't matter whether the bitter vegetable is actually deadly or just an underripe turnip, all that matters is that if you avoid it just in case, you’ll never die from its poison. It doesn't matter if the bull/alpha/male is actually weaker than you, all that matters is that if you can make him back down, you get first dibs on the sex and food every time.
This is survival of the fittest. Not the fastest, not the strongest, the "fittest". it's not a square peg through a square hole, it's more like a semi-circle through a circular hole - it doesn't need to be the best, it just needs to "fit".
So, when we struggle to think critically and fail, it’s all just a result of us thinking like simple, imperfect animals. And, can you blame us? We are animals. When the goal is “survive”, truth is irrelevant, so when you use these same thought processes to find truth or attempt to determine reality, it's the metaphorical razorblade attempting to peel a metaphorical pumpkin. Not impossible, just not as easy.
But it does mean that “common sense” is fundamentally flawed. Sure, it makes "sense" that water looks blue because it reflects the blue sky; it makes “sense” that the sun goes around the Earth; it makes “sense” that blood in your veins is coloured blue; it makes “sense” that sugar makes children hyperactive & yes, it does make “sense” that that these simplistic ways of thinking are due to us having evolved from a less-developed lizard-monkey brain. However, not a single one of these things is actually true. The world is more complicated than our singular common sense allows. That's why we invented science, because we realized that a sometimes we are wrong. Science and other methodological enquiry is designed to curtail these stupid mistakes by slowly and carefully removing human error from the equation.

This is Skepticism 101: Remember that you are very capable of being very stupid. Even with the greatest education, the best of intentions, an astounding track record for efficiency and even if you have a desire to be a skeptic, you can still be wrong. So, you must accept that anything you do not know can be wrong. Even things you think you know can be wrong. Here's a perfect example:
  You are currently reading my blog post.This seems like an obvious thing to say, after all, if you weren't here to read it, then you wouldn't know what it says, right? Surely, this is true.
Well, not necessarily. For instance, who is to say that this blog post is mine? It's posted on "blogspot", and I don't know who owns this website domain. I am under the impression that the ownership for my blog falls under my intellectual property, but this may not be "my" blog post, I might be wrong there. Also, I do offer a translation function within this blog, for people who read languages other than English. If you have translated these words, perhaps these words are not precisely mine, but those of the translation program, so it may not be entirely mine.
Secondly, how do I know that you are reading it? Some people have some very clever text-to-speech programs, perhaps you are listening to this blog post, from some program, or perhaps a carer, parent or guardian is reading it to you.
Also, the word "currently" is ambiguous. Currently, from my perspective, I am the only one able to read this post, because I am still writing it. You won't read it until I have posted it. Although I wrote that sentence so that the meaning of the sentence was supposed to imply a current time contemporaneous to its perusal, but I can't assume that a reader would accept that implication.
Even a sentence which, according to common sense, is very much right, every single word in it is up for debate.

Now, of course, a lot of this might sound tiring. Do you really have to doubt everything?! Well, Yes; but pragmatically speaking, the goal is not to be mired by doubt and "accept nothing". Doubt is not the same thing as disagreement, and it is not believing the "opposite". It just means that when presented with something for which you do not have empirical data (which is to say, that which you have witnessed or investigated for yourself), that it very well could be wrong. Similarly, if you do not know something to be true and are not willing or able to investigate, then the correct answer must be "I don't know".
Remember, the goal is not to "never be incorrect", it's to be the most-correct that you can be. No, you can't always be right, but with some intellectual rigour, you can be less-wrong.

Sometimes, this can be as simple as giving more information. For example, I met a woman today that told me she had a rooster that laid an egg - this is not just an example, this is a true story, a hen wandered into our garden, so I went to a local lady who sells eggs to ask if the hen belonged to her. She came to have a look and determined, no, the chicken is not hers since it was a maroon chicken and she didn't own any red chickens, but she said she would take care of it and look for the owner herself. We had a bit of a chat, and she said she had some cheeky chickens, and one particular rooster that surprised everyone by laying an egg.
I asked her what she meant, and she claimed that it was most-likely intersex (my word, not hers, she said "had both parts"), but some researchers at the local university were interested in having a look, to see if it was fertile.

Now, this is a very unusual claim, but there are some factors that make it appear more plausible in my eyes. There is a local university nearby, and I know that many university students are required to write papers in order to pass their grade (and an intersex chicken would certainly be a paper worth writing). I also know that intersex creatures, although rare, do occur, and because of the various curiosities that come with intersexuality, determining its fertility is not only an interesting conundrum, but could help to determine the nature of its particular sex.
However, obviously, there is reason to doubt it. After all, roosters and hens don't have sexually dimorphic genitals like humans, but rather chickens of either sex both have a cloaca, so this could be a simple case of mistaking a hen for a rooster. Also, although it would be an interesting case if it were true, I don't actually know how or why a local university would become aware of this hen/rooster, since I'm not aware of any universities that go out on "anomaly" hunting missions. It's most likely the woman called them herself, and if it is the case that she did called them herself, then I can't understand why this university was inclined to take her claims seriously. Not to mention, science with a sample of 'one' isn't widely applicable, so I don't know why a university would consider such a case so interesting.

So, as a skeptic, what is the answer? Is there really an intersex chicken out there? a kind of hen/rooster hybrid? A 'hooster'?
Well, the only possible correct answer, as a skeptic, is . . . "I don't know".
I think she was telling the truth, but that's not very meaningful, because even if she's not lying, she could still be mistaken, so it doesn't answer the question of this chicken's sex. Also, whilst I do believe this is plausible, that's not very significant, because many things which do not happen are 'plausible'. I just don't know.

Do I need to go and investigate this case? No, not really. If the opportunity arises to look into this, I would if I had the time, but I am happy not knowing the truth about this chicken and it's chromosomes because this truth isn't relevant to me.
But, as much as it sounds like common sense that this is just a lie, should I really bother being so persnickety? Surely, I should accept that this woman was lying and move on with my life, rather than remain in doubt. However, I can't do that, because although irrelevant to me, this may be relevant to someone else, and I am not prepared to mislead them, just because it is "fit" for me to ignore the reality here. Also, in either case, I would rather be unsure, and conscious of that, than to claim certainty and be ignorant of my own stupidity.


That, you see, is why I am talking about Skepticism in this final day of the Halloween Countdown. Skepticism, by design, counters human error - and ignorance of reality, truth and science is a fundamental human error.
This is what makes Ignorance,to me, so scary. Although I spent this blog post explaining it, the basis of skepticism really is this simple:

1. Accept that you can be wrong.
2. Try not to be.

Most people get caught up on the first one, and those that don't often don't know how to accomplish the second. As to that, well, there's science and logic and methodological empiricism. But, so long as you are comfortable with step one there, recognizing that you are not perfect and can make mistakes, and you can be stupid, then you can start being less so.

Despite how simple this is, people still hurt and kill one another over stupid beliefs; they fight over problems that fighting cannot resolve; they harm themselves and others, due to misunderstanding and lies & they justify their own ignorance by claiming that others are ignorant of what they believe to be true.
Just like being an alcoholic, the first step is realizing you have a problem - most of humanity is in denial when it comes to accepting how bad we are at thinking . . . ironically, because they don't want to think about it.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and I hope you have a very fun Halloween tomorrow. I know it can be a scary time, but there is nothing to fear. That's the beauty of Halloween, we recognize that our fear is yet another human flaw, that we are oversensitive to potential dangers and can react fearfully even to things which are not at all dangerous; but Halloween exploits this simple flaw, so that we can have fun. So, to all of my readers, I wish you the best of fun exploiting your over-active fear response for fun and entertainment, and I hope you have a safe and not-too-stupid time this Halloween. Goodnight.