Trust the Irish!

Here is a screenshot of a news article on the Notre Dame restoration from Irish Central:

The title says the restoration IS a worthwhile cause...

The text under the photo says it is NOT one of them...

So, which is it?!?!

And I'm proved correct!

Following on directly from the previous post...

Even though I'm not on Twitter, it's amazing how much of it I can access.
Here's a tweet that I just found:

There we have it: even gay people don't care about the difference between "queer" and "a queer"!

I am now certain that this whole thing is an exercise in linguistic gymnastics.

Orwellian double speak, eat your heart out!

Linguistic gymnastics

I'm trying to keep up with one of the current debates on free speech: that of Steven Crowder and Carlos Maza, and Maza's attempts to have Crowder banned on YouTube.

Personally, I find Crowder quite amusing although I sometimes stop his videos before they finish because they can be quite lengthy. As for Maza's videos, I find them dull and incredibly misleading. His humour really isn't 'up my street'.

But that's all by-the-by.

I came across this article, written by someone who is clearly on Maza's side (but that doesn't bother me, I like to be informed of both sides of debates, unlike many others...) and I figure the author must be incredibly swamped in this current LGBT-add-a-letter linguistic nightmare.

Here's the quote that got me:
"Maza, by the way, doesn’t refer to himself as “a queer”, but rather as “queer” – and yes, that makes a world of difference. “Queer” is one of those words that can be both a slur and a regular adjective and you have to look at the context of the sentence in which it’s used to know the intention behind it, but of course such an exercise requires a minimum amount of intellectual honesty."

I'm not sure about "intellectual honesty"... If a gay person says to me, "I'm queer," or, "I'm a queer," I will think exactly the same thing. I will certainly not be thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, was the indefinite article used there or not?"

I'm just convinced this whole thing is an exercise in linguistic gymnastics.

It's absolutely insane!

Bad statistics on gun violence

This morning, British viewers could watch Piers Morgan interviewing Donald Trump. I won't say much about Piers Morgan or Donald Trump - they can both say pretty stupid things at times. But, when it comes to this whole 'gun control' debate, Piers always comes up with silly arguments.

Here is one of them (talking of a shooting in Paris):
"More people were shot dead in America that week than have died from guns in Paris since the Second World War."

Sounds like a pretty crazy statistic, doesn't it? Surely that's evidence that guns are bad or evil?

No, the crazy part about the statistic is the vast difference in populations. America has a far greater population than Paris, even if you try to figure out the 'population' of Paris since WWII. That numbers game alone shows that it would be expected that there would be more shootings in America... because there are more people! A mathematical similarity would be saying that more sixes are rolled when 200 people roll dice than when 5 people roll dice. Well, d'uh!!

Piers actually pointed the real issue when he says:
"In Britain, we have 35 gun deaths a year."

What he's essentially saying (although avoiding saying it directly) is that when a country bans guns, there are still shootings.

Banning guns does not reduce this number to zero. What is does do, though, is increase other areas of crime. As Trump rightly states:
"But Piers, in London you have stabbings all over."

So, whilst still having a degree of gun crime, the UK has a huge problem with knife crime.

And hence the reality of the statement that if people want to commit a crime, they will find a way to do it.

The problem is that some people don't follow laws, and they get away with it for a while. In the UK, people can get hold of guns illegally. And that's the same in the USA: people who would be banned from purchasing a gun somehow slip through the net.

The problem isn't the gun, it's the crime.

The "Equality Act"

Here is an interesting comment I found on Youtube:

For a while, I have believed that there are inconsistencies in the modern 'laws', and it is nice to know that I am not alone.



It seems to me that it is not good enough to simply treat all people as human beings, accepting that we might have a different outlook on life. Instead, unless I actively endorse ideologies that I find harmful (dare I say, 'base' or 'toxic'), then I am a [insert misapplied offensive word] and a 'hate speaker'.

No. I am not speaking 'hate', I merely express an alternative point of view.

Is it 'hate speech' to say that chocolate is bad for you and indulging in it will make you fat?
No. And neither is it 'hate speech' to suggest that perhaps there are other lifestyles that are bad for you and may result in negative consequences.

Your imagination can run wild as to what I might or might not be referring to.


Youtube comment found on this video.

Transgenderism causes problems

This is a video well worth watching:



"The very same moment that you're affirming that young person [in being the opposite sex], you're telling them there's something wrong with them, that 'you're not right'. That is child abuse. We need to begin calling it what it is."

Always wear a helmet!

I have cycled many places: short trips (less than a kilometre to the local shops) and long trips (5 weeks across Europe). I frequently use roads, including roads where cars can travel fast close by me, but I also take cycle paths and routes where cars aren't allowed as well.

No matter what route I take, and no matter how short the journey, I always wear a helmet.

It's just common sense.

Yet so many people think they are better than that. They would wear a helmet if only it would fit with their outfit. They would wear a helmet if they cycled on roads, but they stick to cycle paths and don't see the need. They have cycled for years without having an accident, so don't see the need.

Well, the last time I had a cycle accident was a number of years ago... and a fair few thousand kilometres ago. I've heard so many stupid excuses. I've even seen people wearing their helmets, but not doing up the strap. Personally, I think that's even more stupid!

Although it's not to do with cycling, this article mentions scooter riding. Scooters may not travel as fast a bikes, but their function is much the same. In fact, they are possibly more dangerous because most scooter riders use the pavement and have to avoid pedestrians.

The article says:

"Almost half of those who were injured sustained head injuries; 15 percent suffered traumatic brain injuries. Behind head injuries, upper extremity fractures accounted for 27 percent of injuries, followed by lower extremity fractures at 12 percent."

So head injuries are common. Most alarmingly is this statistic that immediately follows:

"Alarmingly, just one out 190 injured individuals was wearing a helmet prior to sustaining an injury."

In my opinion, that is a LOT of stupid people.

And I don't mind saying so.

Wear helmets. Use lights when it's dark. And, stupid people, make sure you stay on the correct side of the road!

If you don't have common sense, then I won't have much compassion when you end up in an accident.