There are no pictures of breasts or any other NSFW item here. If you were just looking for that “item,” you can now leave. However, please stay and read the post if you are interested in how you think…

A woman, Jen McCreight, has posted a picture of herself showing some cleavage to oppose a statement made by a male Islamic Cleric. The news post states

“Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupting their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted last week as saying by Iranian media.

Comedic Insertion

Yes.. Those ARE the two I was looking for…

Sorry, couldn’t help it, there was some “force” affecting me when I made that statement…

If you still don’t get it, well… I can’t help, and I apologize for the use of said language above…

Back to the Story

I am always surprised when a person, religious or not, makes a statement about women and the effects women have on men - different from how women affect men (just to be clear).

Humans have wanted to separate themselves and their “compatriots” into cliques for a very long time. Such separations are to make “us” feel “better” than “them.” It doesn’t matter who “us” and “them” are or whether or not anyone actually is better, but the breakdown of humans into sub-groups continues today.

A woman wears a “skimpy” outfit, and people can imagine what that looks like… Often they are imagining a similar outfit, and they ought to be asking themselves why they have that image associated with that word or phrase.

People think of a “successful man” and often think of a man in a suit and sporting a tie. People think of a “librarian” and an image comes to mind. Why?

Each society has certain similar belief patters, often from religious or social customs. Fashions change because the “new” is “cool” and worn by “that guy” or “that girl” rather than the new “fashion” offering some benefit to the user over the “old” fashion.

We have beliefs that we have due to our parents, our friends, our cliques, our environment, our religion, our society, marketing forces, and other issues we have to deal with as humans. Often, we get “beliefs” because our parents had those beliefs–many times, we haven’t thought why we think that way, we just do…

It is time to start realizing that thinking a girl in a mini-skirt, with thigh-high hose, knee-high boots, and too-tight spaghetti-strap shirt is “loose” or “morally lascivious person” may be wrong. What you are thinking says something about you rather than the person you are looking at while you think those thoughts. You should ask yourself why you have those thoughts and whether those thoughts are generalizations, outright lies, or other baggage that has kept you “prisoner” to your raising (sometimes it is like brainwashing).

Imagine someone coming up to you and yelling, “You are are a stupid (insert your insult here)!” Does the statement, in any way, define you, the person at whom the insult is directed? No. The statement being made says something about the speaker.

Back to Nature

A lion hunts to feed itself and, perhaps, the other lions. The lion does not go out looking for a “hot” meal… (sorry, I’ll try to resist…). If a lion kills a lamb, we don’t blame the lamb for being attractive, for being chased, or for being eaten (sorry, I’m not really trying…). Rather, the lion made a choice on what to kill. The lion may like the taste of lamb, but any lamb would work. The lamb killed was likely sick, injured, or old and not the voluptuous, athletic animal which is better able to evade the lion’s attack.

My Thoughts

Don’t blame the wolf in the sheep’s clothes. The wolf is a wolf and will hunt sheep. It is irrelevant that the religions of the world have problems with the wolf who dresses in a sheep’s clothing (yep, went there again).

Humans will think in sexual terms. We are, after all, animals. We can procreate, or breed as a friend of mine likes to say. Sexual activity feels good because it helps guarantee the continuation of the species.

If you are religious, you have to wonder why God made it feel so good–he could have made it feeling-free. Since it does feel good, you have to admit that God created sexual activity that way for a reason. While it may be to procreate, God may have wanted animals to have a way to get rid of stress. I don’t presume to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you evolution will favor those species that get pleasure from sexual activity. As a matter of fact, I will state that if a certain group of humans got MORE pleasure form sex than others, those populations would tend to grow faster than the others… How is that for behavioral biology? I guess most everyone can grasp that concept…

Summary

Don’t blame women for a man’s activity. Rather, blame the man for not being able to control his emotions and desires. The woman had no way of forcing the man to do anything. Rather, the man chose to act.

This is like arresting prostitutes to stop the desire some men have for sexual activity… It just isn’t going to work folks.

Perhaps the religious community should look to the force for help. If they find the force, they could once again get men to state…

Those aren’t the droids we are looking for…

A news story by Reuters states

Spring comes about 10 days earlier in the United States than it did two decades ago, a consequence of climate change that favors invasive species over indigenous ones, scientists said on Tuesday.

Yes… We again look at a climate change over a short period of time. While this MAY mean something, we are at the beginnings of Climate Change Science.

We are, however, affecting our environment. We release carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, water, and soil. To assume that these releases do not have an affect is, in my opinion, wrong.

However, to say that any such change will “damage” the earth is just as, in my opinion, wrong.

Why?

Was the asteroid/meteor that hit the earth about 65 million years ago (by best estimates) create a pollution event that let Humans evolve and become what we are today? In the past, did “supervolcanoes” create events that altered global temperature? Did fires or natural populations alter plant species/densities and alter global temperatures? Did that “destroy” earth or affect humans?

Affecting humans in a way we do not like is not necessarily “bad” for the planet is it? Think about it…

The post continues to state

Based on Thoreau’s notes and research by botanists in the area, Davis and other scientists figure that about 30 percent of the plant species Thoreau saw are locally extinct and a further 30 percent are in scarce supply, crowded out by southern invaders that can now thrive in New England.

Have these species that are described as “extinct” or “in scarce supply” just moved north and are no longer “in the area?” If so, they aren’t extinct or in scarce supply… Those statements would be misleading. Could we have created a shift in the climate’s temperatures so that the plants migrated? Sure.

However, to say that such migration is “bad” is putting a human value on a change in temperatures. Just as it may limit our snowboarding in California, it may allow other species to flourish or create opportunities for other living creatures–even if we don’t value those living creatures…

If affecting the environment for our benefit is “bad,” why is maintaining the environment in a stable range that is below global temperatures on a global scale a “good” thing just because we like it like this or expect it to be this way?

Try to remember geologic time rather than temperatures over the past 4,000 years…

Evolution fits in how?

When global temperatures and conditions change, living creatures die, cope, or evolve. Just because we say rising temperatures are “bad” for us because we will lose homes along the coast, lose snow sports in many areas, and lose other “valuable” things does not mean that such rising temperatures are bad for the Earth or outside of the normal. Remember, these events are when Evolution tends to jump into overdrive…

Do a Yahoo, Google, or Bing search for what happened about 65 million years ago…

Think critically, please..

I have blogged about this before, and I stand by what I have written.

There have been times in the past where there was no ice at the poles.

Now, scientists think we could have a summer with no ice in the Arctic as early as 2030–just 20 years away!

I am not going to say it–because I already have…

The article states

An increasing number of experts feel the North Pole will be ice free in summer by 2030 at the latest, for the first time in a million years.

Please learn about the natural warming and cooling trends on this planet.  Do some research rather than just believe what people say–even it if appears everyone else is saying it…

Remember, “everyone” used to think the earth was flat and that the earth was at the center of the solar system.  How do you know what you “know?”  Is it because you accept what others say or because you thought critically about facts/data and have come to a conclusion?