I know that I'm not the worlds compendium of knowledge, I don't have special powers to affirm the world's truths without any kind of evidence or purely on insight. I'm probably more of a smart ass than I am smart, I'm just offering up that some popular beliefs might not be as factual as we regard them to be. I'm not going to assert that I am absolutely right as a lot of my assumptions are based largely on my own observations rather than scientific data, but I am trying to punch some holes in some highly regarded ideas that are really barely backed up themselves. I know it may seem like we know it, but people, once upon a time we the world was flat. We thought the world was FLAT.
Second Hand Smoke Doesn't Exist.
You hate me already, I know. I'm ignorant, stupid, practically was dropped on my head as a baby. How could I ignore such an enormously big terrible horrible health hazzard? Think of the children! Well that's the thing, see, I did really put a lot of thought into this.
Quite a few years ago I read one of the scientific articles which is used as evidence for the existence of negative health effects to people who are exposed to smoke from cigarettes but do not smoke themselves. It was a study that compared the rates of lung cancer (by looking at lung cancer patients) in lifelong non-smokers who did not live with smokers in their homes with those who had. It took into consideration the ages that they had become exposed. There was such a small relationship between being exposed to cigarette smoke and being more likely to develop lung cancer that for some age of exposure categories, the correlation was reversed. In otherwords the data sometimes supported that if you were exposed to cigarette smoke you were less likely to get lung cancer than someone who wasn't. The still very small but only likely real relationship belonged to people who had been exposed for their entire lives or since early childhood.
Can I say that it doesn't have an effect on less detrimental diseases like athsma? No, I've never looked into it. I know that cigarette smoke is an irritant, thats why people get choked up when they're at a party and everyone is chain smoking with all the windows shut. If you have athsma, I don't blame you for hating smoking. But I don't think that it's much more than irritating for most people. There are a lot of other much more harmful chemicals and pollutants in being put into our enviroment that we could be worried about before we start banning people from activites that only harm themselves.
Being Fat is Good For You.
Oh god, what are you?!? This is insane! (Your thoughts right now as you read this) There are a handful of studies right now which actually support the claim I just made. Ones that compare longevity with weight class (underweight, normal, overweight, obese, and morbidly obese). People in the overweight and obese categories tended to live longer than those in the other 3 categories. While admittedly there are certain negative health problems that are linked to obesity, it would appear that the benefits might outweight the risks (I know I'm not funny). While they are linked to obesity, the possibility of it being a common factor rather than that obesity causes the health problems has not been explored.
I just think that we should recognize that our concept of thin being the same as healthy is based on a lot of assumptions and overgeneralizations that ignore other important factors. Not to mention we already believed that thinness was more pure and healthy, and then began to gather data around our already existing viewpoint. I can see how there might be some bias.
I'm not saying eat empty carbs to your hearts content and sit down on your fat ass till the end of your long luxuriant life, I'm just saying don't beat yourself up if you can't get that tiny little body you think you are supposed to have. Healthy is healthy, not any particular size.
White People Aren't The Only Racists.
Damn, not as scandalous this time. To be honest, I'm wondering if I will actually get to five, I didn't really think this through. Why is it that white people are apparently the only racists? I see a whole lot of other cultures advocating for their special rights to be put ahead of everyone elses because the white man did them dirty 300 years ago and we now have to atone for this transgression. How is this anything but blatantly racist in and of itself? The other day on here I saw a question asking if white people can actually see other races as their equals because they didn't think they could. Can you imagine the outrage if someone started a straight white mans club? But there are exclusive Asian, black, and native groups all of the time.
I'm not trying to whine like the world is unfair to white people. I know that other groups still have to deal with the shit end of racism, and there are extremists like neo-nazis and North Carolina conservatives (this is funny ok, laugh) that make this especially apparent, but why are white people the only ones walking on egg shells when it comes to this? I think blaming me personally for the racist actions of another white person is pretty racist. Why are we the only ones who have to get a handle on politically correct terms and affirmative action when it would just be far far easier and fairer to just not be a giant asshole. I think just not being a giant asshole is probably good enough.
There is No Need for Modern Feminism.
Yes, I actually want everyone to hate me lol. I have a lot of feminist viewpoints, and I can't negate the obvious need for feminists, feminism and feminist movements in other cutures where women are still supressed, denied access to education, and a whole lot of other things that in the western world women are already on par with. But the way feminism is being argued is nuts. In a bid for for fairness and equal rights by supporting the equality of only one side in an almost equal or equal as possible culture we are often actually seeking retribution for past transgressions which is as dumb as the whole MGTOW thing. And just as sexist as special rights for historically disenfranchised races is racist.
I know some people are taking there sweet ass time in coming around to consider that a woman might actually just be as capable as a man at a certain kind of job, but you also can't expect every individual in society to be that smart. Affirmative action in Canada means that I as a women have a damn good chance of getting trained and highered in the trades industry if I choose to pursue it. What does that mean for men? It means that no matter how qualified they are, if I have the bare minimum for the job I'll be the one who gets it. If a woman applies to law school she has a better chance of getting in than any man because they fill a 50/50 women to men quota while something like 30/70 apply. Sometimes men are just more interested and better qualified for certain kinds of jobs than women in general. It doesn't mean that an individual woman who is cabable and qualified should not be hired over a man, or we should assume a woman isn't as cabable because she is a woman, but how is turning the tables on men a solution to inequality? It just isn't. Be an egalitarian.
And a libertarian while you're at it lol.
Abophobowhenpigsflysexual is Not a Sexual Orientation.
sexual orientation
noun
1.one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."
- The Dictionary
I don't think that there is anything wrong with having a sexuality that diverges from what people consider to be normal, but I do have a problem with a bunch of new made-up words being thrown into the mix to describe fringe interests and tastes and being treated like I'm supposed to become well versed and use them in a politically correct manner to show my social acceptance of people who are different. Like hell, heteroflexible? androsexual? I'm actually supposed to know what that means? I don't have a problem with anyone being different, I have a problem with anyone being a self-entitled asshole. It's great we want to come up with new words to describe certain sexual tastes, and if those words catch on, whoopee, but that's besides the point.
Sexual orientation refers only to a persons interest in men and women. We don't have special categories along the spectrum for people who prefer Asians over latinos, or brown eyes over blue, it just isn't relevant to the equation. The only other sexuality which is a valid sexuality along the spectrum is asexual, because if you don't have an interest in either one then you aren't any of the other three. However adrosexuals and heteroflexibles are still either straight, gay, or bisexual. Your preferences for certain kinds of qualites that are regarded as masculine or feminine isn't what is being measured and quantified here. If you seem to sit somewhere between two categories, bravo that's you and 50% of people who are all still managing to identify as one or the other. Every individual is going to be different and have different preferences, you can't perfectly categorize anyone anyways. Categories should be used to find trends and assess large populations, not to judge individuals.
That's basically the end of my overstated and highly opnionated rant, I'm kind of crossing my fingers and praying that people who agree with me even exist, but mostly just hoping that anyone disagreeing will at least be relatively polite.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
3Opinion
i dont care what others think, i really liked your my take and keep up the good work. wish i knew your name so i could look for your next one
I read this. And die laughing because you use words to express how much you hate words. The regression will soon come.
i don't think people actually believe these things..
in what way do you mean?