Three

Sometimes while reading media I get these urges to express my opinion, I suppose this doesn't solely occur while reading media. It can occur at any time, but it doesn't seem to have a particular trigger. Sometimes I just get attracted to the issue and then start looking into it with more depth so I can make an educated decision. Over time I've become more skeptical since most of the time, regardless of the original stance presented I find that it lacks a completely objective presentation of information. Because of the lack of objective information I tend to begin to strongly disagree with the presenter because I feel like they are trying to hoodwink me into agreeing with them. Generally speaking, people don't like it when you don't agree with them and rather the resorting to factual evidences they resort to non-factual, fallacy ridden emotional arguments.

I try to do as thorough research as possible but so often people become so defensive its impossible to have a discussion with them and be honest with your opinions and the research you have done without them taking it personally. The only time I've felt that I have been able to fully express my opinion without the other party become completely unreasonable due to emotion is with my Father.

In these case this thought process was triggered by a facebook post by Ashely (Jeremy's girlfriend).
When you clicked on the link it took you to an email petition. Which contained no scientific information, studies , links about why bpa was bad and the adverse effects it has on you. So , I had to do some research. My first response comment was as follows.

considering that the fda is being forced to rule(or rather agreed to), due to a lawsuit by the NRDC, a organization whose stance on climate change is still lock step with Al Gore (despite evidences that the scientist involved with the climate change research doctored their data) and they believe wind and solar energy are viable alternative solutions to coal, oil and gas... I'm not sure I believe bpa is anything I need to worry about.

Actually, I'd be more worried about how creating more regulation on food packing companies simple increases the cost of food.

In fact based on the NRDC website, I'd say anything they want I'm mostly likely highly against.... so I say let it stay.

Which received these responses.

When u work in a genetics/DNA/oncology lab and in your break room it tells u not to microwave plastics containing BPA because it can leach out of the plastic and slightly damage your DNA in a fashion that makes you much more prone to cancer, you tend to acknowledge it's an issue.

Jeremy says something about a "straw man"

Which I respond to with this:

it isn't a straw man, I was pointing out that for me I don't put much stock in the organization that forced the fdas hand (not that I really like the fda either), because of how they stand on OTHER SCIENTIFIC issues. Which leads me to believe that they may not actually be founded in science, and this was after I did some research on my own into bpa, which wasn't highly convincing either. If it was a straw man, I would have said, because they teach global warming and wind and solar energy could replace coal, oil and gas they must also be 100% wrong about BPA. No, I said, I wasn't sure I believe them because they have tainted my view of themselves because of the science they do support, and despite what some of us what to believe, science can be just as much about faith as religion is, unfortunatley.

I wasn't trying to convince you. You said it was bad for us, I said I'm not sure I agree with you so I won't go running off to sign an FDA "shut this down now" letter. Now perhaps if you had provided the research studies (or the the link you provided linked to the research studies), I would have been more convinced of your position, though I likely would still have done my own research, as that is how I am. Instead the research I did showed a number of studies that "link" it to cancer, and possible neurological developmental issues, but that is pretty much true of everything thing these days, so that isn't very convincing. Especially since bpa has been in our food packaging since the 60's.

Then some quick checking into cancer case growth and population growth, from 2008 to 2009 our us population increased by 1.0065 % and the # of cancer cases increased by 1.00407%, suggesting that the number of new cancer cases from 2008 to 2009 when treated in terms of the portion of the population who get cancer, shrunk. What would be really interesting would be to see the number of cancer cases from the early 40 til now as a percent of the population (since obviously we have to account for population growth).

Or better still, statistics from the early 1800s till now. Which is data , that as far as I know we don't even have.

In the end, though, we've been doing it for 60 years and the number of packaged goods produced has only increased , so if the link was substantially dangerous we should see a more significant increase in the cancer cases. Obviously I only took a few data points, but anecdotal evidence (I believe its calld the "person who" fallacy, which you could turn into actual scientific evidence maybe, if you did a survey of every genetics lab in the US to see if they had similiar warning signs posted. Though I think providing the actual scientific case studies would be easier and ultimatley more convincing) and calling my argument a straw man... aren't really convincing either.

You'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical... I usually am, especially when they government is involved... and more so when it someone(or more specifically, and organization) claiming to "care" about public health and well-being.

I didn't expect that to be the end of it though. Since Ashley had clearly already signed the petition there would be no hope of a resolution that left her in the wrong (not that she necessarily is, she simply couldn't let others perceive that she had perhaps acquiesced the issue). So I was expecting a response, and not a kindly one. And it follows:

If you are calling "searching the internet" research then you already have a problem. One cannot get at the true bottom of the issue without combing through PubMed and reading several published studies from across the globe and crunching numbers (and even then it's still second-hand knowledge). Have I done that-nope. But with all the possible carcinigens out there it's not a difficult decision for me to back up the removal of one. Just allow the post to be what it was meant to be-not a commentary but a release for those who do think that BPA is bad over time and would like to try and make a small difference by signing the petition.

Certainly not very tactful. First she attacks me (ad hominem). Claiming that searching the internet and calling it research means I have a problem. Though I'm not sure what else you would call it, intellectuals like to bash the internet because its free information that isn't vetted by "experts" so in there minds it can't be legitimate because they can't control it. She then claims that only information that IS vetted by the intellectual medical society is valid but admits to not having done any "research" into those sources either, and as far as I can tell, also did not do my limited internet searching. Then falls back on justification for her decision (as if she needed justify it to me in the first place) and justification being based on a ignorant misinformed initial assumption that it is a dangerous carcinogen in the first place (whether it is or isn't is irrelevant, she simple accepts the same sources as fact that I call questionable ).

I thought about responding, but decided no good would come of it, since she asked me to leave it alone. So I turned to posting my thoughts here so I could express them without causing further rifts in my personal relationships, though why this would cause a rift is silly. I only hope that Jeremy doesn't become "more" liberally minded, but rather she becomes more conservative minded the longer they are together. Unfortunately due to Jeremy's nature, I find it more likely that he will assume her positions rather then she assuming his.

Finally, I would like to include here, what I would have said if I didn't think keeping my mouth shut was a good idea.

First, there are 2 definitions to the word "research". Definition 1:Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. By this definition what I did isn't research, and neither would be reading articles from PubMed. I would expect by this definition the only thing that qualifies as research is applying the scientific method to a hypothesis or the process of coming up with a hypothesis to which you should apply the scientific method. Definition 2:Close, careful study. By this definition "Spending time searching the internet" is research. Reading the articles from PubMed would get me closer to the results of research as defined by definition 1, which would allow me to analyze the data for myself as opposed to the opinions of other analysts, which I could do, but based on the fact that the spearhead organization for forcing the FDAs hand on the issue doesn't seem to really understand good science, I figured it would be a waste of my time to spend any more time "closely studying the issue" and applying the scientific method to the issue myself is simple not feasible. Its actualy rather silly of you to call me out as not doing real research when you admit to not having done any yourself, yet still standing on the ground that you are right to seize the opportunity to encourage the regulation of its use based on the same "not real research" summaries that I found so un-convincing. You clearly linked the petition so that people would sign it, but you didn't link any science to back it up, and then you complain when I don't believe you? Then, while doing my own self-education on the issue, I decide that it isn't something we should be concerned about , and I share that with you as an opinion based on my limited deduction and reasoning skills and the information that I do have available and your rebuttal is that I have a problem because I called it "research"? Despite the fact that by definition it was. You simply could have said that you think the research summaries are compelling and that you do have faith in the science (which clearly you do), and that those who agree should sign the petition and those who don't should not, and that you'd rather not have a discussion about those who disagree.

Two

This morning in the shower I was thinking about forgiveness. I'm baffled by recent current events. A young women went before congress and made a case for the government paying for her contraceptives so that she can enjoy sex when she feels like it. Our president may have forged his birth certificate, yet if discovered to be a true forgery I'm sure he will suffer no real consequences. With this in mind, I thought about the concept of hell, and in my mind those deserving of a reception in hell or those who knowingly and willfully seek to limit the agency of another for their own personal gain. In the case of this young women, she seeks to take away the wealth of others to provide for herself a contraceptive whether they wish to provide her with the funds or not.

I think most of the advice given in scripture can be distilled into this idea. Dishonesty, the willful deceit of another to alter their will based on the information they have to make their decision from. Murder, the taking of another's life ends their capacity to have a will. Theft deprives the original owner of the use of that good for which they bought it for preventing them from acting in that capacity when they see fit. Adultery, you are either allowing someone to break a contract they made with another or breaking your own, which is a form of lieing. Thou shall not covet, coveting limits your vision of possibility. It also leads to decision making that may not weigh fully all the available facts. Idol worship. Putting anything on a pedestal may influence you to make decisions you otherwise wouldn't have.

The question then becomes , how is that one can claim that we should be free to act as we see fit, but then limit those actions based on some arbitrary set of what rules and who defines those rules? There are cases where killing someone is the right choice, there are cases where theft is the right choice, so, how is it then that we are to know what is right and wrong when right and wrong are so dependent on the situations in which we find ourselves.

And how does any of this relate to forgiveness, which was the thought that sparked this line of thinking. Forgiveness is not for the sinner, but for he who was sinned against. Forgiveness allows the one who was sinned against to move on and not dwell on the sin or wrong done them. This allows them to avoid being mired in the psychologically damaging state that prevents them from acting as a free agent. However, were there a time, when the sinner came to the sinned against with intent to restore as best they could the damage done, the sinned against having already forgiven will simple have more restored unto them. Which then takes us to what must be a great lie perpetrated by all the christian churches of today. The idea of Christ forgiving all of us and thus allowing us to bypass justice. How is bypassing justice ever good? Lets assume I've done something wrong, lets use an example that allows for a consequence that I cannot avoid. Lets say, I steal a car. Eventually the police catch me and I'm thrown in jail, where I spend 5 years. From this experience I learn that stealing is wrong, or at least unacceptable in the society I live in. I vow to not do it again and I don't. Haven't I then, suffered justice and paid the price? How then am I going to be punished more by God at my day of judgement. He already knows I learned my lesson, since I didn't steal another car my whole life, even if I had a desire to I repressed it knowing that it was a bad decision. Lets say however, I didn't learn, and I continue to steal cars and I continue to go to jail and when I do eventually die, the only reason I didn't steal more cars was because I was too old. Now at judgement I say, sorry God and Jesus and Jesus says, "no problem, I know you didn't learn your lesson even though you went to jail 15 times in life for committing the mistake over and over, but since you said your sorry , I'm going to put a good word in and get you through the gate".

My point is, there has to be a bad punishment/consequence associated with our actions if we are going to learn it is wrong, there by achieving "forgiveness" and further perfecting ourselves. Your perfection cannot be given to you. Thus, its very possible that they only purpose for the concept of repentance, is that through it, you avoid the anticipation of the punishment. Its like telling a child that a shot isn't going to hurt, when it is, but you say it to keep them calm enough to get it over with since you know it really isn't going to hurt for very long.