I was reading The Local Newspaper, and apparently there is a group of legislators in my area who would like to not only ban all abortion procedures in the state of Florida, but to make performing or “inducing”— a worrisomely vague term— the termination of a pregnancy punishable by life in prison.

Life. In. Prison.

This induced me to say something I’ve been meaning to rant about for a while.

For the most part, at least here in the southeastern United States, the often highly emotionally charged opposition to the intentional termination of a pregnancy seems to be rooted in the belief, held by many Christians, that the soul of a human being enters the body at conception. Now, perhaps I am mistaken in this opinion, but I cannot help but view any assertion regarding the existence and nature of souls, as fundamentally unfalsifiable. I have, for my own reasons, come to the conclusion that there is indeed an immortal “essence” of a person, or a person’s consciousness if you would prefer, which constitutes what one might term a “soul”. However, the fact remains that no one has ever been able to empirically demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, even the very existence of such an entity as a soul—- let alone when, in the process of fetal development, such a thing as a soul might enter or arise within a human body.

If you believe that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, that is fine, and that is your business. If, for example, the Catholic Church wants to include such an idea in its teachings and discourage its members from terminating a pregnancy on the basis of this, that is fine. 

But at least in my opinion, no one, anywhere, ever, should be passing legislation, let alone legislation so drastic as designating an abortion as a first-degree felony, on the basis of what essentially comes down to metaphysical speculation. The claim that the soul enters the body at conception is, by its very nature, fundamentally unfalsifiable. No one to date has discovered any way to definitively prove or disprove any such claim.

So why are we legislating based on this?

I was originally motivated to write this bit in response to this gifset, but I decided to post the text again.

It kind of disgusts me, frankly, the way Adele is and was talked about because of her body type. 

I mean, Adele is such a talented vocalist it’s insane. Her music isn’t necessarily my cup of tea overall, but my god can that woman sing. I’ve always kind of felt like, as far as vocalists go, some people can sing, but other people can sing, and Adele can fucking sing. In terms of vocal talent, I think she’s largely unparalleled in pop music right now. So you have this immensely talented, and also very beautiful, woman, who makes music that is not only popular but good—- and what do people talk about? What do people dwell on? Her weight. Her fucking weight. 

I’m tired of seeing women mocked, derided, discredited, and otherwise not taken seriously, on the basis of not fitting the “standard of beauty” which we are taught by our culture and its mass media. I am tired of seeing intelligence, wit, and talent brushed aside because a woman isn’t “attractive enough”, or isn’t the “right kind” of attractive. Mostly, I’m tired of this attitude that a woman’s worth—- despite the creative talents she may have, the intellectual gifts she may possess, the athletic prowess with which she may be gifted— lies, at the end, in her physical attractiveness. FUCK. THAT. SHIT. Seriously, I mean what the fuck is wrong with us, that so many people look at the beautiful, talented woman that is Adele, and see only fat jokes, because she isn’t thin? Furthermore, why is it that because her body type isn’t the lean, willowy figure that seems to be the only one the media is ever even willing to show, it’s assumed that she must be stuffing her face with friend chicken all the time, that she must be lazy and super-sedentary—- the implication being, essentially, that she must be weak-willed? 

I just kind of wish I could live in a world where otherwise amazing and talented people, who have so much to give to the world, could not be put down and written off that way, because of something as ultimately irrelevant as the size of their body.

I was filled in on this by a friend who’s active in the local SCA Jester’s Guild. If anyone has a link backing up this information (or indicating that it isn’t true), feel free to message it to me.

In modern-day depictions of court jesters, they are usually shown wearing three-pronged hats. Apparently, however, the three-pronged form originated during the Renaissance period. During the Medieval period, the two-pronged form was actually more common.

Something about this guy’s facial expression just says “Asshat” to me…

Apparently, the proper name for this type of hat is, in fact, the “Asshat”—both in English (well, presumably Middle English), and in a number of other European languages, whose terms for this hat apparently translate more or less directly to “asshat”.

I don’t think anyone can deny that “asshat” is an incredibly fun word to say. Hehe. “Asshat”.

So, my boyfriend and I are house-sitting for his folks, who are out of the country for a couple of weeks, and I just heard one of those political-type pre-recorded messages on the answering machine. It was apparently sponsored by some Catholic foundation, which kind of disappointed me because, though I’m a “lapsed Catholic” in an uncannily similar way to how Carl Jung was, I tend to have some respect for Catholics and Catholicism. (It bears mentioning that I live in The Bible Belt, and around here Catholics are incredibly reasonable and progressive compared to many adherents of some Protestant faiths, notably Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, and others.)

The message in question said something about Obama “picking a fight with people of faith”, along with something about his healthcare plan. I’m not seeing the relationship? These message thingies are so darn vague. I wish they’d give some real information regarding the actual differences between the candidates’ positions and platforms.

I hope it doesn’t sound too trite to say this, and that you don’t feel compelled to pat me on the head and go, “aww, college students, they’re so idealistic”… but I have had it up to HERE with the vague sentimentalism and nebulous ad-hominem nonsense. 

Anyway, pardon my ignorance, but can someone fill me in on what, if anything, Obama said or did to make Christians feel threatened or uncomfortable? (“People of faith” most likely means “Christian” in this context.)

acideyedrops:

i thoroughly enjoy how google + still exist and no one uses it

i mean none of you guys use it right 

Google+ is just like… bless its heart, y’know? It’s tried so hard, and just fallen flat. I almost want to feel bad for it, in this Neville Longbottom sort of way, where it’s well-intended and really does try, but is just so sadly inept. (IDK why I’m personifying Google+ like that, but whatever.)

I kind of find Google+’s lack of success strangely fascinating, though, because it seemed like there was all this dissatisfaction with Facebook among consumers, and like there would have definitely been a market for a Facebook alternative, especially from Google, whose services are very well-liked. But it just didn’t work out for Google+. Maybe G+ is too much like Facebook; perhaps it lacks appeal due to having little new to offer. Or, maybe the lack of interest in G+ is related to Google having incurred some criticism related to their privacy policies—- privacy policies being a major consumer complaint regarding Facebook. Either way, it’s kind of interesting how something like G+, which seemed initially like it might really take off, just kind of fizzled out.

(Source: universeobserver)

I noticed the freelice-ers have brought him up recently.

Personally, rape jokes leave me largely unphased and unoffended. However, I understand why they strike such a deep nerve with so many individuals, and I think that the fact that rape is a touchy subject, needs to be respected. (And honestly, what’s funny about rape? I mean, seriously).

However, I CANNOT STAND DANIEL TOSH. I find him excruciatingly unfunny. His general comic persona seems to be that of a puerile douchebag. He comes across as being that perpetually adolescent 30-something whose glaring ego-insecurity is thinly veiled by a crass and juvenile sense of humor. “Trying to be offensive” doesn’t equate to humor, at least not to me. I don’t find Tosh’s humor particularly incisive or insightful. It strikes me as little more than a series of attempts to offend people, which apparently is supposed to be funny. To each their own when it comes to humor, I guess.
(I’m referring to Tosh’s public/performance persona; I don’t know him personally, and for all I know he could be a nice guy offstage, but he wears the mask of a total dick when performing for an audience).

I try to understand that other people find his humor appealing, but personally he grates on me. I just cannot stand him. Like I said, he might be a nice enough guy “IRL”, but when I see him on TV, he almost makes me want to punch him in the face. For me, that’s kind of saying something.

But yeah, overall I just wanted to say to the world: I CANNOT STAND DANIEL TOSH’S COMEDY.

My boyfriend was just sending me some amusing quotes from that 50 Shades of Grey book that everyone’s been talking about.

Now, I’m not one to talk, but…

Two words: PURPLE PROSE.

The purplest.

I mean, really. From what I have seen, the writing is ridiculously florid. I can’t stop laughing internally— though I suppose the author has at least found a use for all those SAT vocabulary words we all had to learn in high school.

I feel like a snobby bitch for feeling this way about a book I haven’t actually read.  It’s not like I could do any better. But that said, LOL FOREVER.