Apparently there’s some kind of huge uproar – a ‘kerfluffle’, if I may – over Jerome Armstrong getting mocked for believing in astrology. The idea is apparently that it’s just as much a belief system as anything else, and there’s an implication that just because there are people who believe in something, it’s automatically something to be venerated and respected. This is, of course, bullshit.

(Note: Of course, this doesn’t really apply to the people who consider astrology a kind of fun hobby-type thing; it’s more about the people who take it entirely seriously and consider it a primary belief system, possibly to the extent where they use it to attempt to determine events in their lives (or in government policy, *cough*Reagan*cough*).)

Astrology’s not even so much a belief system, really–it tries to pass itself off as a kind of science. And it’s a demonstrably consistently incorrect one. Fuck, even the I Ching is more scientific. At one point in time, someone assigned arbitrary patterns to clusters of stars, and then later someone else assigned a special significance to the movements of those constellations. It’s about as scientific as drawing a bunch of animal pictures with magic marker using the knots in the wood paneling on someone’s walls, and then throwing a tennis ball really hard around the room and declaring that wherever it lands, the closest animal is going to have the most influence on the thrower. (Oh, and the influence of each animal – its benefits and harms – is also decided completely arbitrarily.)

I’m willing to concede that the period of the year during which a person is born could potentially set certain aspects of their perspective, though I doubt there would be enough consistent data in any psychological study to indicate any kind of correlation. But the idea that the entirety of humanity born during a particular part of a month is going to encounter the exact same variety of experience is just retarded. Let’s find an example. My horoscope from yesterday:

Love affairs have to be approached with a far more sensitive and spiritual attitude if you are to experience romantic fulfilment just now. Try connecting on a deeper level with those you come in contact with and don’t only look at the superficial aspects of love.

That had absolutely nothing to do at all with any of the events that took place in my life yesterday. Let’s do another! Two days ago:

Getting out of an invitation tonight may not be too easy as those that have invited you to a function or party may have a clear idea of your schedule before hand. You will just have to speak the truth and tell them you’re not in the mood.

Not even close. I’m sure there’s probably someone who experienced that somewhere in the world – maybe they’re a pisces, maybe not. (Not to mention, of course, that a lot of it is extremely generalized stuff… “do you sometimes feel sad? Are there times when you feel other people don’t understand you?” I’m not the only one who notices a similarity to Scientology. Many horoscopes sound a lot like those “Personality Quizzes” they give you.) But, hell, I could make up about anything and I’m sure someone, somewhere will experience it. That doesn’t mean my “prediction” was somehow accurate.

Almost the entire purpose is to somehow discern the future, which is itself a ridiculous concept. This is where it differs from most other belief systems: while there’s no real evidence for, say, the lack of God’s existence or for what really happens to us after we die, astrology makes repeated claims about the outcomes of given periods of time that are observably incorrect. It’s not even a matter of faith in the intangible, it’s stubborn belief in something that can easily be demonstrated to be false when compared to the observable world. Gee, there’s certainly nothing at all wrong with that way of thinking. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.â€?

If you take this shit seriously, you’re just asking for ridicule. I mean, fuck, are we to also respect the people who have faith in Nostradamus’ predictions? How many times must the end of the world fail to materialize before that shit is considered officially debunked?

So, the Surgeon General has determined that any amount of second-hand smoke is harmful.

First of all, how do we define “harm”? Are we qualifying or quantifying? Surely if we’re using the criterion of “any damage at all”, then nearly everything we do is harmful in one way or another. Cell phones emit electromagnetic radiation. Typing can contribute to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Diet soda/pop can cause cancer. A day in the sun exposes us to more radiation than living near a nuclear power plant for a year. All these things are, technically, harmful. What kind of a scale are we talking about, here? Is this sun-radiation harmful or living-on-a-nuclear-waste-dump harmful?

And like cigarette smoke is the only pollutant floating around in the air. Ah, the delicious irony of a parent telling a person smoking outside a restaurant, “you’re killing my kids!” just before corralling the family into their SUV. In more urban areas, why even bother? The only reason to even want to outlaw public smoking in cities would be if you think it gets in the way of your smog-inhalation, or the smell of sun-baked bum excrement.

But the funniest thing about this whole “no smoking in public” movement is the following: “But public smoking bans don’t reach inside private homes, where just over one in five children breathes their parents’ smoke — and youngsters’ still developing bodies are especially vulnerable.”

Um, duh? If you ban smokers from being able to smoke anywhere but inside their own homes, where do you think they’re going to end up smoking? I’ll wait here for your answer while you run off to get that degree in rocket science requisite for solving this difficult logic puzzle.

“I don’t want to briefly inhale someone else’s cigarette smoke as I pass them in the park, so I’d rather they be forced to sit around in an enclosed environment with their children.” Oh, you hero… you champion for the cause of human health! I’ll get on the horn with the Franklin Mint – I’m sure we can work out some kind of mass-produced medal for all of you health-champions out there.

Now, I can understand not wanting it in restaurants and other enclosed public places, where there are ceilings and, y’know, no wind. Hell, go for it – ban it in all the indoor public places you can think of. I don’t want to be forced to breathe other people’s smoke, either, and I’m sure neither do many of the people who work in such places who have no choice but to sit there lounging in it all night. But outside? Come on! Ban the sun while you’re at it. Ban automobiles. Ban radio signals and cell phones. Otherwise it’s just an empty gesture, and one that actually has a detrimental effect on others – specifically, the children of the people you’re trying to keep from smoking where it has the least effect on others. “I’m sorry, sir, but I’m going to have to ask you to go inside and smoke with your children.”

I’m not a smoker myself, but I’m uncomfortable with the idea of soft bans, especially when they have a minimal benefit in exchange for an inflated level of harm. By ‘soft ban’, I mean that there’s very little difference between banning cigarettes and banning the act of smoking them. It’s just a roundabout, self-deluding way of doing it that helps people reconcile it with their increasingly inaccurate self-depictions as supposed champions of freedom in the supposedly freest country in the world. “If we don’t outright ban it, then we’re still Freedom-Lovers(TM), right? We still get our American flag bumper stickers?”

And part of me believes this is simply another roundabout way to fortify the ban on marijuana – guilt by association because you put both of them in your mouth and light them on fire. Despite the fact that studies have indicated no correlation between marijuana and cancer, banning cigarettes would add another few nails to the coffin of ever removing the ban on pot. You know, the ban on a drug that scientific study has been repeatedly exhonorating over the last decade from the radical and unfounded claims and accusations repeatedly made by the government of the freest country in the world. Yeah, that one.

More on all this later.

Around the time of the Chronicles of Narnia movie’s theatrical release, I left a series of comments on a conservative blog belonging to the author of the book given away as a prize in the 2006 Bloggies. Apparently, he dedicated an entire other post to replying, and I only just noticed it while looking through Technorati’s referral list. So, I figured I’d dedicate an entire post to reply to his, even if belatedly. Partially because it relates a little to the Conservative Top Fifty Rock Songs thing.

He employs what I’ve come to believe is the single most irritating tactic of argument: Cherry-picking the few easiest-to-debate points your opponent makes and replying to them in such a way as to make it seem like the rest of the argument – the more challenging points – were all just as easy. Sure, perhaps my responses in a given debate tend to be lengthier than those of other participants, but I’d rather be a little on the lengthy side than do nothing but the discourse equivalent of picking the pepper from someone’s steak and hacking at it with a machete.

The fact that he begins with semantics is indication enough:

First of all, is it possible to be slighly appalled? As appalled means “To fill with consternation or dismay.” does that mean Lewis would only be on about a quarter of a tank?

There’s a bit of a point from an overly literal standpoint, but if we’re dealing with the vernacular, and we take into account the fact that people aren’t usually entirely overwhelmed with one single emotion, the argument begins to break down. I mean, I’m often a bit of a Semantics Asshole myself, but one shouldn’t necessarily use it as the opening for an argument, especially when it’s something particularly nitpicky.

Most of his post takes issue with this single line: “TK: I think C.S. Lewis would actually be slightly appalled by the fundamentalist Christians in this country.”, ignoring the many paragraphs with much better points that I provided.

(Continue reading below the fold…)
Continue reading →