Wednesday, 27 June 2018

Paypal's acceptable use policy

Paypal have updated their "acceptable use policy".

As always, it seems like it's nothing to worry about... except for the vague terminology that could easily land someone in trouble. Regarding hate, violence, racial intolerance and the financial exploitation of a crime, they change to:

"You may not use the Paypal service for activities that ... relate to transactions involving ... the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime ..."

Sounds pretty harmless? Sounds like "common sense"?
But who's to say what counts as "a form of intolerance"?

Are Paypal users allowed to have their own moral code?
Or is this another excuse for a company to force a left-wing ("far-left") ideology on the common people?


Monday, 25 June 2018

Problems with Dawkins' atheism

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins attempts to prove that not only the Christian God, but any god, is a "delusion". He says of the "unpleasant character" of the Christian/Jewish Scriptures that it would be "unfair to attack such an easy target." His "God Hypothesis" is:

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." (Chapter 2)

There are a few brief points to make.

Firstly, despite being a scientist, The God Delusion is filled with very unscientific language and argumentation: it is filled with derogatory and insulting language for anyone who might possible hold a different view. As such, the book is not objective, and therefore not particularly scientific.

Secondly, Dawkins views God as something physical and therefore subject to scientific experimentation and explanation. Yet, the Christian Scriptures say that whilst God may have had some sort of physical presence on earth at times (such as the Ark of the Covenant or Jesus), God is, by nature, spiritual. As science can only test physical things, all science has "proved" is that God (if he exists) is not physical, which is what the Bible says anyway: "God is spirit" (John 4:24).

Thirdly, Dawkins assumes that to say some things are created must imply that all things are created, even God. Essentially a form of Aristotle's "unmoved mover", Dawkins always asks of Christians, "Well, who created God?" And yet, by the very same argument, it could be asked of Dawkins, "Well, what caused the Big Bang?" By denying the existence of a being which is outside of time, Dawkins and his followers now have no explanation of how the universe came into existence. Science, by nature, examines "cause" and "effect": what is the "first cause"?

To rational thinking, intelligent readers, The God Delusion will only reveal an author who is ignorant of religious ideas and is not effective at applying the scientific method, relying instead on childish insults.

(Note: Dawkins apparently is a good scientist - biologist - but this is not apparent in the pages of this book.)

One of the major problems with the idea of evolution and science is that science assumes consistency. An experiment performed last year will yield the same results as today and next year. Yet evolution is about gradual change. Essentially, if evolution is correct, this means that current science is not effective for observing the past or future, only the present (and a small amount of time either side).

Monday, 28 May 2018

UK's Orwellian Nightmare

I recently posted about a shocking statistic that was trying to be kept secret: that over 80% of child grooming gangs (in various parts of the UK) involve Muslims. Social media didn't like it, because it didn't fit the current narrative. Twitter not only banned the posts, but also banned certain people's accounts.

One of those accounts was Tommy Robinson. Whilst, on the one hand, I cannot say I agree with everything he stands for, on the other hand, he does stand for something. And in this current age of apathy and confusion, that is to be admired. He is someone who cares about the downward spiral that England is currently travelling.

One of the aspects of that spiral is that, in the current ideology of 'tolerance', Muslims are enforcing sharia law in non-Muslim countries, ignoring the national laws and the media is largely silent because it is deemed 'politically incorrect'. Tommy Robinson wants to make that sort of thing known, to wake people up to the reality that exists outside of the technological bubble.

One the morning of Friday 25th May, Tommy did a live-stream outside a courthouse where a trial was taking place regarding child grooming gangs. The perpetrators were Muslim. All nine of them. And the media was silent on it. Why? Because apparently the court had issued an order that the trial not be reported. So Tommy might have broken that. But why was the order issued? Was it really to 'protect' the perpetrators? Many other similar trials do not have such orders, only that names are not used. Such an order disregards freedom of the press, and it shows that even the courts are engaged in political correctness. Such a trial doesn't fit the current narrative and so it must be silenced.

But there's more at stake. Tommy was arrested during his live-stream. Note the word 'during', not 'for'. The officers, caught on camera (see the last link), gave the reason for his arrest being for "suspicion of breaching the peace", despite the fact, also caught on camera (same previous link), that Tommy was not breaching peace in any way. But even that is not the main problem. Tommy was then jailed, for "contempt of court".

He was arrested for one reason, then jailed for another.

That is not right. That shows that the police will do whatever it takes to arrest someone, and then 'find' a reason to put them in jail if they don't like that person (for example, if that person tries to expose the lies of the current narrative).

What followed was a huge silencing of reports on the situation. Any website or article that tried to expose the lies and show what was really happening was being blocked or shut down.

Articles which remained were largely condemning Tommy. Some people said he was targetting Muslims and therefore must be advocating hate speech (see this comments section). But how can one man cover everything? Other trials get reported. He is only seeking to expose that which is being kept hidden. If the government allowed mainstream media to do their job, and if the mainstream media took their responsibilities seriously, then there wouldn't be this mess in the first place. And there wouldn't be a need for people like Tommy to fight for freedom.

Here are some of the articles that have been archived, but are no longer accessible if you follow the link:

Arrested for live reporting on grooming gang trial

An article which (like this one) shows the problem of Tommy's arrest

Here are some sites that haven't been censored (yet) and show what has been going on:

Orwellian Nightmare

Arrested for journalism

Media crucifixion of Tommy Robinson

Media censorship

This is the reality of the situation in the UK.
Freedoms are being demolished.

Only one year ago, I had never heard of Tommy Robinson or the 'English Defence League'. When I found out about him, I didn't agree with his tactics. But, as time goes on, I find that what he stands for is far more admirable than the current government's authoritarian leadership.

Note: The false label of "far-right", in the current age, simply means "not far left". It's used as an insult, much like the word 'bigot' for people who uphold laws that have been in effect for centuries.

Friday, 4 May 2018

"People of Colour"

The current American 'politically correct' term to call non-white people is 'People of Colour, or POC for short. Because 'black' isn't politically correct, and not an 'accurate' description.

But then, 'white' isn't an accurate description either: the skin of a 'white' person is actually a bit pink, maybe a bit red, maybe a bit brown.

Essentially, we are all 'people of colour', it's just that some people like to exclude lighter-skinned people and bully them.

In any case, the term can't have been coined by a 'POI' (Person of Intelligence). Let's think of the logical conclusion to this...

In the English language, plurals are generally made by adding an 's' to the end of words. Acronyms are no exception, even though this is technically incorrect (e.g. DUIs for 'drivers under influence': note where the plural is).

This means that although 'POC' should technically be used for both 'person of colour' and 'people of colour' (much like the words 'sheep' and 'fish' which are both singular and plural), it gets transformed to 'POCs' for the plural.

And the problem with this is that 'POCs', when said as a word, sounds exactly the same as 'pox'... which is a term for a variety of diseases.

So, essentially, certain black people want to drive out supposed 'systematic racism' by demanding all black people are called something we use for diseases.

Now there's irony!!

Sunday, 8 April 2018

University competence

Regarding a university test (Masters level):

More reason why we need to be Maths literate.

Seriously, why is the "(or 4)" even there?!?!

Thursday, 5 April 2018

Gun control and modern politics

I came across the video below, entitled "Nick Freitas: Best 7 minutes ever on gun control".

The reality is that he speaks about much more than just gun control. He touches on some of the real problems with debating politics with people. For example, every conservative being labelled a "Nazi", and US Democrat supporters projecting the sins of the Democrat past onto Republican supporters.

He speaks with passion. His honour is exemplary.