Friday, December 8, 2006
WHAT SCIENCE HAS TO SAY ABOUT LOVE
Contemporary neuroscience research has revealed that when people affirm to sensing love a steady number of chemicals are present in the brain including testosterone, oestrogen, norepinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin. Specifically, both testosterone and oestrogen are present in the “lustful” stage of a relationship while norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine are frequently found during the “attraction” stage. Oxytocin and vasopressin are associated more closely with long term attachment, affection, and strong connections. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist and author of the book Why We Love – the Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love, characterizes four personality types and links each with a bodily chemical. In other words, testosterone and director, estrogen and negotiator, dopamine and explorer, and serotonin and builder. Also interesting is that a protein molecule identified as the “nerve growth factor,” or NGF, was discovered to have high levels when people first fall in love by Italian scientists at Pavia University in 2005. They found that these levels go back to normal levels after one year.
Santa Clause: Why the Lies Must Stop
A bit of history: the Christmas character known as Santa Clause is loosely based upon St. Nicholas, a bishop from Myra who devoted his inheritance to assist the needy, sick, and suffering. St. Nicholas was well known for his generosity, his love of children, and his concern for sailors and ships (he was named the patron saint of sailors). Santa Clause today is an extremely popular figure, especially around this time of year, however, that does not mean that we should accept the Santa Clause tradition. We, as a society, need to re-think this tradition of lying to our children. Santa Clause may forever be a symbol of Christmas in America, but it is unethical to encourage our children to believe this myth.
Parents who encourage the Santa Clause myth must perpetually lie to their children. This is not the same as a little white lie or a lie told for the good of their child; keeping up the Santa Clause myth requires a long string of lies and defenses which need to be elaborated on over time.. A good parent builds their relationship with their child on trust, not dishonesty; you know the consequences. Another repercussion of keeping the myth alive is that in order to do so a parent discourages skepticism. As they are asked more and more questions about Santa Clause, parents make up more tales about this man and his supernatural powers.
I think that the worst part of the Santa Clause myth is the lesson it teaches our children about rewards and punishment for good and bad behavior. The Santa Clause myth implies that Santa Clause is constantly watching you (mildly parallel to Big Brother of 1984) and judging you as "naughty or nice" based on your good and bad actions. Children learn that through good acts they will be rewarded with presents and through bad acts they will be punished with a piece of coal. It is not the right lesson to learn; children should be taught to be good not for the sake of reward or from fear of punishment, but because it is the better thing to do. Similarly, it is unethical to control your children through Santa Clause.
Lastly, Santa Clause is incredibly similar to Jesus and God: he has supernatural powers and he rewards or punishes children based on his own definition of good or bad deeds; his existence is implausible, yet you must be a believer to get the rewards. I hope you consider all of these thoughts before you and your children put out a plate of milk and cookies for this powerful stranger.
Parents who encourage the Santa Clause myth must perpetually lie to their children. This is not the same as a little white lie or a lie told for the good of their child; keeping up the Santa Clause myth requires a long string of lies and defenses which need to be elaborated on over time.. A good parent builds their relationship with their child on trust, not dishonesty; you know the consequences. Another repercussion of keeping the myth alive is that in order to do so a parent discourages skepticism. As they are asked more and more questions about Santa Clause, parents make up more tales about this man and his supernatural powers.
I think that the worst part of the Santa Clause myth is the lesson it teaches our children about rewards and punishment for good and bad behavior. The Santa Clause myth implies that Santa Clause is constantly watching you (mildly parallel to Big Brother of 1984) and judging you as "naughty or nice" based on your good and bad actions. Children learn that through good acts they will be rewarded with presents and through bad acts they will be punished with a piece of coal. It is not the right lesson to learn; children should be taught to be good not for the sake of reward or from fear of punishment, but because it is the better thing to do. Similarly, it is unethical to control your children through Santa Clause.
Lastly, Santa Clause is incredibly similar to Jesus and God: he has supernatural powers and he rewards or punishes children based on his own definition of good or bad deeds; his existence is implausible, yet you must be a believer to get the rewards. I hope you consider all of these thoughts before you and your children put out a plate of milk and cookies for this powerful stranger.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
For Sebastian Green-Husted
I absolutely adore you! You are my teacher, my lover, my doctor, my best friend, my therapist, my partner, and, to a large degree, my happiness. I love an respect you more than anything or anyone I have ever encountered during my lifetime. Thank-you.
Love,
The Little Red Haired Girl.
Love,
The Little Red Haired Girl.
----
1.) You asked: “WHY WOULD THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD BELIEVE IN IT IF IT WEREN’T TRUE?” There are many theories on why religion is still around today. I will attempt to expand on the one mentioned in my essay above. MEME THEORY designates that religion is a compilation of ideas that have a certain temptation to aspects of human psychology. More specifically, some concepts, beliefs, thoughts, and symbols operate in ways similar to natural selection. Some are easily thought, held, or believed; others are not. Meme theory refers to these concepts, beliefs, thoughts, and symbols as memes. Hence, God, Satan, Heaven, and Hell are all examples of memes and because religion is made up of so many interrelated and mutually supportive memes it is still prevalent today, despite its illogicality. If you would like to learn more about the memetic nature of religion I would suggest looking into it yourself. In the meantime I will give you a few examples I have used in my essay. Most religions restrain their followers from exploring other options or using critical thinking with the threat of Hell. Any temptation away from their faith can be classified as the “work of the devil,” in their minds. At the same time they encourage their followers to have blind faith in their God and are ultimately successful in this task because they teach that this behavior is rewarded in Heaven. These religions are creating generations of ignorant followers who don’t want to challenge any of their religion’s teachings largely because of their irrational fear of Hell and their desire to get into Heaven. Another problem is that these fears and desires are instilled in their children at a very young age because religion includes a meme directing believers to spread the religion to their children and friends; a meme that Richard Dawkins classifies as abuse. Many religions also wish to “spread the faith” to others, taking advantage of the longing of the follower to both get into Heaven and save another from Hell.
2.) Occam’s razor implies that because of the lack of convincing reasons to believe in God, disbelief is better. This principle states that one should no make more assumptions than the minimum needed. If you would like to know more I would, again, advise looking it up for yourself; you will find that Occam’s razor is extremely important to science, philosophy, and it is also a good example of common sense.
3.) This is related to Occam’s razor: when you tell of these people who have experienced spirits it is far more likely that there is a simpler explanation for these experiences than another entire dimension of reality. I would gladly help you find it if you would give me more information on their specific experiences.
4.) At this point in our debate you have only referenced us to other people’s work. If you prefer to debate that way, then I suggest you read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
5.) Why do you insist that there must be a plane of supernatural existence? You have given me no concrete evidence and you consistently fail to prove this. At this point you have reiterated the same point over and over again without providing usable evidence. Subjective recollections of an experience are not viable evidence because of three reasons. 1.) Human error. 2.) Many things can go wrong with the human mind to nullify all of these subjective experiences. 3.) An alarming number of people are willing to fabricate these types of stories for the purpose of attention, to say nothing of the immense publicity and fame that can come along with it.
6.) “Innocent ‘til proven guilty” has no relevance to this situation. You would not say that fact is “true ‘til proven false.” Also, your point about the Earth not being at the center of the universe is more analogous to your argument. Your argument is archaic, increasingly unsupported, and counter indicated by a growing body of evidence.
7.) You are correct in saying that humans are not perfect, but that is exactly why we should take the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people in the scientific community who are putting their minds to a problem and working to solve it over the delusions of one person. Science attempts to find the most reasonable explanation through the use of logic and reason. Faith, on the other hand, is not based on reason or logic.
8.) You asked me to understand, respect, and not offend the people who have found “it.” A year ago I would see this as a reasonable request and I will do my best to respect these people as other human beings, but I have no respect for their disease. What they stand for is incorrect. These people often advocate intolerance, and this is not an ignorable fact. In addition, whether they belong to an organized religion or not, anyone who has “found it,” as you put it, advocates ignorance. This is what I am fighting against. It’s my attempt to leave the world in a better state that I found it.
2.) Occam’s razor implies that because of the lack of convincing reasons to believe in God, disbelief is better. This principle states that one should no make more assumptions than the minimum needed. If you would like to know more I would, again, advise looking it up for yourself; you will find that Occam’s razor is extremely important to science, philosophy, and it is also a good example of common sense.
3.) This is related to Occam’s razor: when you tell of these people who have experienced spirits it is far more likely that there is a simpler explanation for these experiences than another entire dimension of reality. I would gladly help you find it if you would give me more information on their specific experiences.
4.) At this point in our debate you have only referenced us to other people’s work. If you prefer to debate that way, then I suggest you read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
5.) Why do you insist that there must be a plane of supernatural existence? You have given me no concrete evidence and you consistently fail to prove this. At this point you have reiterated the same point over and over again without providing usable evidence. Subjective recollections of an experience are not viable evidence because of three reasons. 1.) Human error. 2.) Many things can go wrong with the human mind to nullify all of these subjective experiences. 3.) An alarming number of people are willing to fabricate these types of stories for the purpose of attention, to say nothing of the immense publicity and fame that can come along with it.
6.) “Innocent ‘til proven guilty” has no relevance to this situation. You would not say that fact is “true ‘til proven false.” Also, your point about the Earth not being at the center of the universe is more analogous to your argument. Your argument is archaic, increasingly unsupported, and counter indicated by a growing body of evidence.
7.) You are correct in saying that humans are not perfect, but that is exactly why we should take the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people in the scientific community who are putting their minds to a problem and working to solve it over the delusions of one person. Science attempts to find the most reasonable explanation through the use of logic and reason. Faith, on the other hand, is not based on reason or logic.
8.) You asked me to understand, respect, and not offend the people who have found “it.” A year ago I would see this as a reasonable request and I will do my best to respect these people as other human beings, but I have no respect for their disease. What they stand for is incorrect. These people often advocate intolerance, and this is not an ignorable fact. In addition, whether they belong to an organized religion or not, anyone who has “found it,” as you put it, advocates ignorance. This is what I am fighting against. It’s my attempt to leave the world in a better state that I found it.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT LEFT BY BENSO1PF ON "SCHIZOPHRENIA AND RELIGION"
I currently do not have enough information to answer your first question. Both are possible. Bicameralism is just a theory; again, it is one of those things where I do not have enough information to decide if it is a realistic answer or not, but I brought it up because it was an unusually interesting theory to me. Also, I would not personally define atheism as a religion, but that is because my definition of religion includes having faith in a "higher being." I understand why you would personally classify atheism as a religion, but I see it as more of the negation of religion. I do disagree with you when you imply that atheists have FAITH that there is no god. I would not use the word "faith." Faith is a belief not based on reason or logic while atheism is based on proof and evidence I have found through research, therefore the tennants of atheism do not fall under "faith."
IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT LEFT BY BENSO1PF ON "INTRODUCTION: WHY MAN CREATED GOD"
You are correct to say that my essay did not prove that God does not exist. It was meant to be my thoughts on why he was created, nothing more. However, your idea that God's existence also fits into these observations is a weaker theory and requires more assumptions.
To address your second paragraph, the goal of science is not to find absolute truth, but to provide the most reasonable explanation using logic and reason. The idea of God goes against what we have learned from science. This is evident as many religions constantly have to change their definition of God and what he does. Most Christian religions no longer use the literal interpretation of the Bible, as it is incompatible with modern science. Also, please explain to me how the "development of the understanding of the atom" was wrong. As far as I have heard there was a vague model which, over time, became more and more specific.
Meme theory indicates that religion is composed of ideas that have appeal to certain aspects of human psychology; this explains why religion is so prevalent, despite it's illogicality. You are basically correct in saying "if a meme is no good it will naturally fade into the background," because a meme that is not likely to be thought will fade because it is not prone to be thought or passed on.
I am curious, in your fourth paragraph are you referring to the open-minded protestants that burned witches? The same protestants that had a theocracy in America? The protestants that were far worse than the religious intolerance they came to America to escape? Or are you referring to the other protestants: the ones that don't exist? The schools you mention taught the Bible and I highly doubt that they encouraged students to think about the possibility that the Bible was not historically accurate. The point of these schools was to teach the Bible, not critical thinking, tolerance, or open-mindedness. I would also disagree with you that Buddhism is a religion. Buddhism is a philosophy. It encourages critical thinking, debate, and acceptance. Buddha is not their God, he is their teacher, their guide, and their role model. In addition, I hope that you are not confusing the state of enlightenment with Heaven. Enlightenment is more of a state of mind - an enlightened one is liberated from the cycle of rebirth. Further proof that Buddhism is not a religion lies in the fact that Buddhists are often Atheists. Agnosticism is also a philosophy, not a religion, as Agnostics will say that they can't know if there is a god or not.
To address your second paragraph, the goal of science is not to find absolute truth, but to provide the most reasonable explanation using logic and reason. The idea of God goes against what we have learned from science. This is evident as many religions constantly have to change their definition of God and what he does. Most Christian religions no longer use the literal interpretation of the Bible, as it is incompatible with modern science. Also, please explain to me how the "development of the understanding of the atom" was wrong. As far as I have heard there was a vague model which, over time, became more and more specific.
Meme theory indicates that religion is composed of ideas that have appeal to certain aspects of human psychology; this explains why religion is so prevalent, despite it's illogicality. You are basically correct in saying "if a meme is no good it will naturally fade into the background," because a meme that is not likely to be thought will fade because it is not prone to be thought or passed on.
I am curious, in your fourth paragraph are you referring to the open-minded protestants that burned witches? The same protestants that had a theocracy in America? The protestants that were far worse than the religious intolerance they came to America to escape? Or are you referring to the other protestants: the ones that don't exist? The schools you mention taught the Bible and I highly doubt that they encouraged students to think about the possibility that the Bible was not historically accurate. The point of these schools was to teach the Bible, not critical thinking, tolerance, or open-mindedness. I would also disagree with you that Buddhism is a religion. Buddhism is a philosophy. It encourages critical thinking, debate, and acceptance. Buddha is not their God, he is their teacher, their guide, and their role model. In addition, I hope that you are not confusing the state of enlightenment with Heaven. Enlightenment is more of a state of mind - an enlightened one is liberated from the cycle of rebirth. Further proof that Buddhism is not a religion lies in the fact that Buddhists are often Atheists. Agnosticism is also a philosophy, not a religion, as Agnostics will say that they can't know if there is a god or not.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
SCHIZOPHRENIA AND RELIGION
Schizophrenics have are more likely to be religious than healthy individuals and religious people have a more frequent occurrence of schizophrenia than other groups of people. This is especially true in Jehovah's Witnesses who are three times as likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia and four times as likely to be diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia than the general population.
More interesting and on the topic of the origin of religion: bicameralism is a theory arguing that the human brain was once divided into two parts; one part acted as the speaker while the other part listened and obeyed. Psychologist Julian Jaynes believed that the human brain acted in this way for everyone as recently as 3,000 years ago. The bicameral mind functions similar to the mind of a modern schizophrenic. In unexpected situations the bicameral mind would not make conscious evaluations like our modern brains, but the person would hallucinate a voice (which they perceived as god) giving them commands and they would obey without questioning the voice. At this time humans did not have consciousness as we do today. The commands from "god" we read about in ancient legends were actually commands directly from an individuals' own brain. Jaynes makes the case that in both The Iliad and older sections in the Old Testament there is no mention of any cognitive process (ex. introspection), and no notion that the authors were self-aware. However, later books of The Old Testament and The Odyssey show a different mentality and an early version of consciousness. Jaynes also showed that there were more gods in those times than there are in modern times, and that is further proof of bicameralism because each person had their own personal "god," although it was actually their own brain. I am fairly unfamiliar with this theory, so my explanation is lacking. It's just a theory, but if you want to learn more I suggest looking it up yourself.
To state the obvious, I believe religion is dangerous and mentally unhealthy. Religious people have a tendency to reject proven scientific facts while insisting that unproven miracles exist. These people are not only some of the most intolerant people in existence, but it is impossible for them to see their views as flawed. A more rational view of reality and existence is better, especially when coping with the harsher parts of life and in finding a fair moral philosophy. Also, it is more important and productive for the world to search for scientific explanations rather than supernatural ones and, if nothing else, an atheist is a more intelligent human being who is able to make his/her own decisions and come up with his/her own moral code independent of "God" or a really old book (yes, i am referring to the Bible).
More interesting and on the topic of the origin of religion: bicameralism is a theory arguing that the human brain was once divided into two parts; one part acted as the speaker while the other part listened and obeyed. Psychologist Julian Jaynes believed that the human brain acted in this way for everyone as recently as 3,000 years ago. The bicameral mind functions similar to the mind of a modern schizophrenic. In unexpected situations the bicameral mind would not make conscious evaluations like our modern brains, but the person would hallucinate a voice (which they perceived as god) giving them commands and they would obey without questioning the voice. At this time humans did not have consciousness as we do today. The commands from "god" we read about in ancient legends were actually commands directly from an individuals' own brain. Jaynes makes the case that in both The Iliad and older sections in the Old Testament there is no mention of any cognitive process (ex. introspection), and no notion that the authors were self-aware. However, later books of The Old Testament and The Odyssey show a different mentality and an early version of consciousness. Jaynes also showed that there were more gods in those times than there are in modern times, and that is further proof of bicameralism because each person had their own personal "god," although it was actually their own brain. I am fairly unfamiliar with this theory, so my explanation is lacking. It's just a theory, but if you want to learn more I suggest looking it up yourself.
To state the obvious, I believe religion is dangerous and mentally unhealthy. Religious people have a tendency to reject proven scientific facts while insisting that unproven miracles exist. These people are not only some of the most intolerant people in existence, but it is impossible for them to see their views as flawed. A more rational view of reality and existence is better, especially when coping with the harsher parts of life and in finding a fair moral philosophy. Also, it is more important and productive for the world to search for scientific explanations rather than supernatural ones and, if nothing else, an atheist is a more intelligent human being who is able to make his/her own decisions and come up with his/her own moral code independent of "God" or a really old book (yes, i am referring to the Bible).
Monday, December 4, 2006
INTRODUCTION: WHY MAN CREATED GOD (a work in progress... Sebastian did some editing 'thank you')
I want to address why man created God. It is a common desire for humans to wish there was something more to life than their basic day to day activities. When man created God it was to allow them to feel less alone in life and to feel as if their lives had more meaning because they were living for God. Another reason God was created was to help enforce morality and to ensure the survival of social constructs. If a believer carried out their life in a "good" and "moral" way, then they believed that they would be rewarded with eternal bliss in Heaven. If they committed immoral acts during their life, then they would be punished by being sent to hell, to face an eternity of misery. The concepts of Heaven and Hell have always been useful in scaring people into living the "moral" life, and bribing them towards the same end. The creation of Heaven is also born from the human tendency to fear death. Some people think that they need to believe in Heaven to relieve their anxiety about dying. Lastly, when God was initially created, humans did not have scientific explanations for things such as fire, thunder, rain, etc. They created a supernatural being (God) as a way to explain these phenomena.
A theory that has significance with regards to religion is meme theory. In brief, meme theory states that, in some aspects, symbols, thoughts, beliefs and concepts are acted upon in a nature similar to natural selection; some are more apt to be recognized, thought, held, or believed than others. In terms of meme theory, symbols, thoughts, beliefs and concepts are referred to as memes. Examples of memes include: the American flag, the swastika, capitalism, communism, God, Satan, Heaven, and Hell, to name a few. Religions still exists today because they are clusters of interconnected, mutually supportive memes. A prime example of the memetic nature of religion is how they act as a sort of conceptual immune system. These religions discourage their followers from using critical thinking, (as doubt is the work of the devil, and results in Hell) and encourage them to have blind faith in their teachings (as God praises faith, and it results in Heaven). These ignorant followers won't branch out to other religions or challenge any of their religion's teachings primarily because of their irrational fear of Hell, and desire for Heaven. Their religion made sure that this fear was instilled in them at a very young age by including a meme that directs believers to spread the religion to their children so as to prevent them from going to Hell. Many religions also contain memes relating to the “virtue” of spreading the faith to those who do not have it, taking advantage both the desire of the believer to get into Heaven and to save another from Hell.
A theory that has significance with regards to religion is meme theory. In brief, meme theory states that, in some aspects, symbols, thoughts, beliefs and concepts are acted upon in a nature similar to natural selection; some are more apt to be recognized, thought, held, or believed than others. In terms of meme theory, symbols, thoughts, beliefs and concepts are referred to as memes. Examples of memes include: the American flag, the swastika, capitalism, communism, God, Satan, Heaven, and Hell, to name a few. Religions still exists today because they are clusters of interconnected, mutually supportive memes. A prime example of the memetic nature of religion is how they act as a sort of conceptual immune system. These religions discourage their followers from using critical thinking, (as doubt is the work of the devil, and results in Hell) and encourage them to have blind faith in their teachings (as God praises faith, and it results in Heaven). These ignorant followers won't branch out to other religions or challenge any of their religion's teachings primarily because of their irrational fear of Hell, and desire for Heaven. Their religion made sure that this fear was instilled in them at a very young age by including a meme that directs believers to spread the religion to their children so as to prevent them from going to Hell. Many religions also contain memes relating to the “virtue” of spreading the faith to those who do not have it, taking advantage both the desire of the believer to get into Heaven and to save another from Hell.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
CHALLENGE ME, I CAN PROVE IT.
There is no god. Please stop using your fairy tale to justify discrimination.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Thinking about Saddam... and how he was better.
I was thinking back to a cigarette break a few weeks ago when I was debating the Iraq war and whether it was good or bad and whether or not we should leave. I immediately jumped on the IT WAS A MISTAKE boat. The "Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator" card was thrust in my face, but I still hold that Iraq was better off when he was in charge. All we have done is caused more pain and death while we started a civil war.
It is pointless for me to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, because I am fairly sure that almost everyone feels that way now. While I believe that Saddam in a genuinely bad human being, I think that it was a mistake to take him out of power. Yes, Saddam is responsible for numerous deaths, but now that Bush is in Iraq the same things are happening, only more so. Saddam Hussein killed about 600,000 Iraqis over a period of 23 years while Bush is responsible for killing about 100,000 people in just over a year. Now instead of an evil dictator Iraq has a higher rate of death, chaos, and a seemingly endless civil war. Because America took it upon themselves to take out Saddam thousands of people are dead - thousands of them are civilians. These civilians are not just being shot in the head, but they are being suffocated, strangled, and burned; they are being terrorized. It's ironic that we are terrorizing Iraq while at the same time we are supposedly fighting the "War on Terror." It is plainly obvious to me that the "War on Terror" is terrorism. Not only that, but this has cost us billions of dollars - maybe this money could have been used to help people instead of kill them? Even Hans Blix, the former UN chief weapons inspector believes that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. Now, the Iraqi people have to follow early curfews and the women of Iraq are no better off; Saddam's oppression has been replaced with murders sexual abuse, and rape. Women still face legal discrimination. Maybe there is something that I am not taking into consideration... I'm not sure, but for now I will say that the whole thing is a huge mistake.
It is pointless for me to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, because I am fairly sure that almost everyone feels that way now. While I believe that Saddam in a genuinely bad human being, I think that it was a mistake to take him out of power. Yes, Saddam is responsible for numerous deaths, but now that Bush is in Iraq the same things are happening, only more so. Saddam Hussein killed about 600,000 Iraqis over a period of 23 years while Bush is responsible for killing about 100,000 people in just over a year. Now instead of an evil dictator Iraq has a higher rate of death, chaos, and a seemingly endless civil war. Because America took it upon themselves to take out Saddam thousands of people are dead - thousands of them are civilians. These civilians are not just being shot in the head, but they are being suffocated, strangled, and burned; they are being terrorized. It's ironic that we are terrorizing Iraq while at the same time we are supposedly fighting the "War on Terror." It is plainly obvious to me that the "War on Terror" is terrorism. Not only that, but this has cost us billions of dollars - maybe this money could have been used to help people instead of kill them? Even Hans Blix, the former UN chief weapons inspector believes that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. Now, the Iraqi people have to follow early curfews and the women of Iraq are no better off; Saddam's oppression has been replaced with murders sexual abuse, and rape. Women still face legal discrimination. Maybe there is something that I am not taking into consideration... I'm not sure, but for now I will say that the whole thing is a huge mistake.
Friday, November 24, 2006
The Annual Turkey Slaughter (aka Thanksgiving)
Yesterday was Thanksgiving. All over the country Americans marked this holiday with their ritual turkey sacrifice. It's a disgusting tradition, and it must stop. We live in a country where meat consumption is unnecessary for our health and survival, and therefore, immoral. What you might not have known is that turkeys are excluded from federal animal protection laws. Many turkeys raised in factory farms have their beaks removed to avoid aggression caused from overcrowding, but this process causes lifelong pain to the newly-disfigured bird. The process of debeaking and detoeing (I assume these terms are self-explanatory) do not involve anesthesia and can cause bleeding, infection, and death. Overcrowding presents other problems, too; the birds are forced together with very little room to move around while the breathe in ammonia and dust. The dust these turkeys breathe in causes many of them to develop respiratory diseases while the ammonia fumes burn their eyes. They are also know to develop food ulcers and breast blisters, as they are constantly given drugs to make them large in time for the holidays. Also, a good question to consider is why Americans mark this holiday with a turkey sacrifice instead of murdering a deer, a duck, or another animal. There is no record that indicates a turkey was eaten at the first Thanksgiving feast. In addition, Thanksgiving didn't become a large American holiday until 1863.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
