17 de março de 2018

What if Brazil followed that trend?

Filed under: Notícias e política — Tags:, — Yure @ 11:40

So, as you kids have read, the author of Rurouni Kenshin was caught with child porn recently, but possession of child porn is punished with a fine in Japan. So, he is still free, but had to pay around 2000 dollars to the police. I talked to others about that issue and it seems like, in Japan, you are only arrested for violent crimes. That made me think of Brazilian prison population. Imagine if Brazil followed that trend. While the Brazilian government wastes money keeping people in jail, often for small offenses, the Japanese government earns money by fining those who commit the same offenses. What would be the practical consequences of that, if it was adopted in Brazil?

First, organized crime would lose numbers. There are people who are forced to join the Red Command or the First Capital Command while they are serving time in jail. Less dangerous offenders are given the choice of joining them to die horribly later or dying immediately in criminal hands if they refuse both. Reducing the prison population, that wouldn’t happen, specially considering that both factions are in open war against each other. With less people in jail, their operations would be harder, those guys would be easier to monitor, rebellions and massacres would be less bloody and they would end up destroying each other in the long run anyway.

Second, taxes would be softer on the law-abiding citizen. If all those people who were arrested for non-violent crimes became extra tax payers? I don’t know if Brazil is as broke as they say it is, but fining those guys rather than arresting them would be a great way to earn tax revenue. Of course, we are speaking about non-violent crimes, not murder or rape (and I mean “real rape”, in the sense of forced penetration, not whatever else people call “rape” nowadays).

And that culminates in the main point: we wouldn’t only alleviate state expenses, but also rise tax revenue with that. But how to implement that?

My idea is that fines are paid in wage percentages. In the case of child porn, for example, the mere possession of the file could be punished by taking 12% of a person’s wage for, say, four years (of course, that’s just an example, I don’t think possession of child porn is such a big deal to be punished so harshly, as possession of murder footage isn’t a criminal offense, despite murder being a much more serious crime, compared to nudes that kids share with each other). Wage percentages are useful because, that way, people who earn more would pay more, while poor people wouldn’t be required to pay amounts that they do not have. Plus, a rich person supposedly has less needs and better education, so it’s unlikely that they committed the offense because they “needed” it, unlike a poor person who steals food to not starve (in that case, I think it’s state’s fault, so the person isn’t supposed to be punished if state fails to provide basic survival conditions). A person who can not pay the amount goes to jail and serves there for X – Y years, where X is how long he was supposed to pay the wage percentage and Y is how long he has managed to pay (if I had to pay for four years and managed to pay only two, then I’m arrested for two years, which is 4 – 2). Plus, if the wage percentage exceeds 50%, I can apply to be willingly arrested. After all, in jail, I won’t starve and maybe I would even be safer, if the prison population goes under control. In times of economic crisis, the crisis could be softened by adjusting the wage percentages in the penal code (which wouldn’t affect time and percentages of those who were convicted before the adjustment), reducing the need of imposing more taxes on law-abiding citizens.

What do you think? Would be a good idea, in the end? I’m pretty bad at politics, so maybe I said something stupid. If I did, correct me, please.


15 de março de 2018

E se pegasse no Brasil?

Filed under: Notícias e política, Organizações — Tags:, , , — Yure @ 11:38

Então, como você já deve ter lido, o autor de Samurai X foi pego com pornô infantil esses dias, mas posse de pornô infantil é punida com multa no Japão. Então, ele continua livre, apesar de ter pago uns quatro mil paus pra polícia. Eu conversei com outros sobre o assunto e parece que, no Japão, você só vai pra cadeia por crimes violentos. Isso me fez pensar na população carcerária brasileira. Imagine se essa moda pegasse aqui. Enquanto o governo brasileiro gasta dinheiro mantendo os presos na cadeia, às vezes por crimes pequenos, o governo japonês ganha dinheiro multando os que cometem os mesmo crimes em seu território. Quais as consequências práticas disso, se isso fosse adotado no Brasil?

Primeiramente, o crime organizado perderia contingente. Existem pessoas que são forçadas a se filiar ao Comando Vermelho ou ao Primeiro Comando da Capital enquanto estão presas. Pequenos criminosos têm a escolha de se filiar a um deles e morrer depois ou morrer imediamente se recusarem ambos. Diminuindo a população carcerária, isso não aconteceria e o crime organizado perderia números, especialmente porque diferentes facções estão em combate umas com as outras. Quanto menos gente na cadeia, mais difícil fica pra esse pessoal operar, eles se tornam mais facilmente monitoráveis, rebeliões seriam menos sangrentas e eles acabariam eliminando uns aos outros a longo prazo de qualquer forma.

Segundo, a carga tributária sobre o cidadão poderia diminuir. Se todos os caras que foram presos por crimes não violentos fossem transformados em pagadores de impostos? Eu não sei o país está mesmo quebrado como dizem que está, mas multá-los em troca de liberdade seria um bom jeito de obter arrecadação. Claro, estamos falando de crimes não violentos, não de assassinato ou estupro.

E isso culmina no ponto principal: não apenas aliviamos as contas do estado, como também arrecadamos mais com isso. Mas como isso seria implantado?

Minha ideia é que as multas sejam pagas em porcentagens de salário por um período de tempo determinado. No caso da pornografia infantil, por exemplo. A mera posse do arquivo poderia ser punida com o pagamento de 12% do salário por, digamos, quatro anos. Porcentagens de salário são úteis porque, dessa forma, ricos que cometem crimes pagam mais do que pobres que cometem crimes. Isso porque o rico, se realmente tem uma boa vida e talvez boa educação, provavelmente não está cometendo o crime por necessidade ou falta de instrução. Além disso, isso impede que o pobre tenha que saldar somas que não possa pagar. Atenuantes de pena afetariam a porcentagem paga e o tempo de pena. Se o indivíduo não pagasse, iria pra cadeia pelo tempo restante da pena (se eu só pude pagar por dois anos e preciso pagar mais dois, seria preso por dois anos, que é o tempo restante). Em adição, se a porcentagem de salário exceder 50%, o indivíduo tem a opção de ir preso voluntariamente. Afinal, na cadeia, ele não morrerá de fome e talvez até fique mais seguro, se esse método reduzir mesmo a população carcerária. Múltiplos crimes aumentam a porcentagem e o tempo de pagamento. Em tempos de crise, ela poderia ser atenuada alterando as porcentagens de pena, o que diminui a necessidade de aumentar impostos. Só resta saber se os políticos não vão passar a criminalizar um monte de coisas só pra terem mais arrecadação, o que poderia, acidentalmente, piorar a corrupção.

O que você acha? Seria uma boa ideia, afinal? Pelo menos assim, a arrecadação do estado, bem como seus gastos com a população carcerária exorbitante, seriam problemas parcialmente resolvidos.

4 de março de 2018

Defending controversial causes online.

I see some people defending controversial causes in the Internet and doing so in a absolutely fruitless way. I don’t know if they are kidding or not. I never defended anything with my nails and teeth, like they claim to be doing, but, if I were to, I would try something like this strategy I’m about to tell you about.

In the book Paedophilia: The Radical Case, O’Carroll tells us how radical homosexuals fought discrimination back in the seventies and eighties. It was something like this: when one of them suffered discrimination, he would speak to others, who would also speak to more people and, when they had enough people interested in counter-attacking, they would crossdress, go to that place where the discrimination happened and camp at the place. So, if you saw fifty drags camping around someone’s house or around a pub, someone in that area was certainly a homophobe. As the protest was peaceful, the police couldn’t do much. On the other hand, if someone tried to attack them aggressively, the drags would call the police on that guy. It was a very effective attempt to force people to accept that homosexuality happens and that the number of homosexuals is huge, that they are sticking together.

That radical drag strategy can be summarized in four points. Some of them are being neglected by my friends with heretical ideas. They are responsive action, coordinated action, secret planning, peaceful action. Online, a protest of that sort would be done to a much less effective extent, but could be done much more frequently.

Responsive action (“do not attack, unless attacked first”).

A responsive action happens after a first action and in response to it. When your point of view is attacked by someone, you should counter-attack, both as means of self-defense and as a way to destroy the opposition. My friends have both scientific evidence and philosophical technique, but that are used offensively. They start the fight. When you start the fight, you may very well end up ignored. But, when you reply to someone’s position, that person can not ignore you without looking like they have no counter-argument. Plus, if the action is coordinated, the opponent may even feel ashamed of the position they hold and silence about it in the future, thus reducing opposition.

Plus, when replying to someone’s message, you are posting something. If it happens in public, then extra kudos for you. Others will see the post exchange and judge which side is the correct one. If you are ignored, that effect doesn’t happen, because people tend to believe more in a person who, in a debate, destroys the opposing point of view. Without an opposing point of view to destroy, your position won’t be magnified.

Coordinated action (“don’t do this alone”).

When several people attack at same time, the blows happen quicker, each person is encouraged to attack with all that they have (due to feeling protected) and it’s hard to point out who is the “head”, the “responsible” for the attack. If several people attack a certain point of view and the proponents of that view don’t have enough arguments to defend themselves, those who are watching the debate and secretely hold a heretical opinion may feel tempted to participate, despite not being “formally” in the ops.

If you are attacking alone, specially if you are the one starting the debate, you are behaving in a suicidal manner: the establishment will consume you. On the other hand, if you are in group and is attacked, depending on what is done, you can appeal to the authorities of the platform where the offense happened. So, both for defense purposes and reporting purposes, it’s important to know the rules that are valid in the site you are using.

Secret planning (“don’t talk about /b/”).

It’s important to plan the action in secret, so that the proponents of the establishment are caught unprepared. If we are talking about Internet, that can be done with a forum approach. Create a board or forum in which the participants can post links, for example, to news that defend the establishment. There, other readers can examine the news, identify weak points, select material to be used against (scientific evidence, rethorics, jokes, news from other sites and so on) and comment, en masse. If four people go, that’s already pretty good, considering the amount of views that garbage news get every day and the amount of evidence available on our side. The same can be done with social media posts, such as Facebook and Twitter. A forum user reports the behavior, others will see the post and evaluate what can be done, then they go and attack. That way, it’s also possible to inflate the number of positive reactions to a post (such as “likes”), which sometimes make people shy to disagree.

Besides the forum approach, Discord servers and Skype groups can also be used, depending on the cause that is defended, as well as the number of partipants. Sometimes even the comment box in a blog works, for the purposes of reporting and organizing.

Peaceful action (“convert, don’t alienate”).

Whenever you write something online, in public, you must also think of those who are reading, not only the person who is the direct receiver of the message. Make your opponent say something stupid and put his position in danger. If he gets mad at you, don’t actively try to make him more enraged, keep going with the plan, don’t let yourself be dragged by emotion, be at your best behavior. If the opponent makes a mistake, acts with emotion or attacks you (rather than you argument), let him do so, without descending to his level. Those who are reading, upon seeing that your behavior is decent, while the opponent is behaving erratically, would be less inclined to associate with a position defended by a lunatic, specially if you speak in clear, easy-to-understand terms. Ask questions, make your opponent feel like he has to prove that he isn’t an idiot, confront him with the contradictions of his position, but always reponsively and never alone.

If you are arguing online, it’s important to shield yourself from personal attacks, so you must stay within the boundaries of the law and must refrain from breaking community guidelines that are valid in that site. That way, if your opponent does something against you, then you have the right and authority to report them. If you get banned for no reason, maybe you will take your opponent with you.

Jumping to reality.

Another advantage of the forum approach is that you are able to track the number of active people in those communities. When the number of individuals is big enough in comparison to a place’s demographics, maybe it’s time to do something in real life, rather than sticking solely with online debates. Maybe that would be a good time to act, in group, and print leaflets or do whatever real life protest you think is suitable, keeping in mind the number of supporters and the conditions surrounding the act. Depending on the cause, online meetings may be the only way for those people to gather around the idea and plan real life protests, that would be similar in structure, even if not in content, to the radical drag thing. We need more people in order to do something like that and a lot of communities are being formed thanks to the Internet. Use it intelligently.

28 de fevereiro de 2018

Oh, speaking of pedophilia, did you know that the author of Rurouni Kenshin was caught with child porn yesterday?

Filed under: Notícias e política — Tags:, — Yure @ 22:55

Someone needs to tell that to Katrien; that boy would be a great addition to Minor-Attracted Figures in History, specially because he confesses his feelings to the police: “I liked girls from the upper grades of elementary school to around the second year of junior high school.” But you know? After everything that I have studies on this subject, after having watched all Rurouni Kenshin episodes, after learning that age of consent in Japan is 13 (though it can be higher depending on the city), I don’t think he should have been arrested because of that. In Japan, possession of child pornography is punished with a fine (he will pay almost 2000 dollars), not with jail time.

As I have been studying relationships between adults and minors from a more scientific and philosophical point of view, I never touch the subject of child pornography. I have zero interest in studying the issue in depth, because I think it’s something of smaller importance. In any case, a dude who made a manga about peace, about love, about Japanese history, about philosophy… those who have read and watched Rurouni Kenshin know, he really can’t be a bad person. Is there a reason to be disappointed with him? The only way to know for sure is understanding what is child pornography and how it works. First, I’m curious about one thing: if the age of consent in some Japanese places is 13 and the videos he kept depicted teens aged 15, why he didn’t move to a place where age of consent is 15 to legally build a relationship with an adolescent? Oro!

Anyway. To start, we need to accept that there needs to have no explicit sex for something to be considered child pornography. Currently, the biggest producers of child pornography are the very minors, who even distribute and consume that pornography. “Where?”, you may wonder. In the form of nudes. Erotic pictures showing a person under age of 18 are child pornography, even if there’s no sex. even if there’s no adult paying, encouraging or motivating the tyke. The youngest person to be investigated for production of child porn is a five-year-old boy from United Kingdom. But how will authorities deal with the problem? Stopping prosecution of unharmed minors who are having fun? No, but forbidding the selling of cellphones to kids. See if it makes sense. Protecting someone from something that is not harmful to them isn’t protection, but control. There’s an open war against child sexuality. Now, if there are minors producing and exchanging that porn among themselves, isn’t it clear that they are having fun and no one is being harmed? “But what if it leaks?”, someone may ask. Well, great, we should punish the person who leaked the file. It’s a matter of common sense. Why forbid cellphone usage by kids because the camera can be misused?

That takes me to the second problem: if age of consent in Japan can be as low as 13, while it’s 14 in Brazil (where I live), why is it a crime to have pornography depicting people from age 14 to 17? “UN says so”, someone might say. Good, but, as far as I know, the main purpose of UN is to promote world peace and avoid the third world war. I wonder how that prohibition plays a role in world peace. In fact, just between us, UN does a terrible job at promoting world peace. For example, they say that the Brazilian Military Police must be extinct. If their meetings happened at Rocinha, they would think differently. Tomorrow or not, North Korea will fire a missile against United States and the third world war will happen with no problem, despite what UN thinks on the subject. I wonder how the idea of “childhood innocence” is going to stop a missile. In fact, that innocence only exists in the minds of some adults: if a five-year-old snaps pictures of his dink to show his little friends, then that innocence doesn’t exist, unless “innocence” means “lack of sex shame”.

So, in a country where age of consent can be so low, the fact of him being just fined for possession of child pornography depicting 15-year-old girls, which could have even been recorded and shared by those very girls, without adult intervention, isn’t something otherworldly, as some people at Kotaku think. It was a small criminal offense in that context. But only Japanese people can see it, because their moral codes are more pragmatical.

So, if you are wondering if I’m favorable to the legalization of child porn, I would like to say that there are both pro and against arguments. The only reason why I position myself against comes from my own career choice (teacher).

I know that many tykes only attend to school because they need at least a middle school diploma in order to have a decent job. Let’s suppose that child porn became legal today. Tomorrow, there would be some files in legal circulation already. Then, one tyke has the great idea of monetizing the pictures and videos. If he had a source of money income (because there are a lot of people willing to pay for it), at same time as he sees school as an intermediate step between childhood and a job, don’t you think he would be tempted to drop his studies? If the practice became popular, and the minors engaged in sincere competition, the evasion rates in 3rd World schools would increase, or so I think. When I told that to another guy, he asked me “mandatory basic education doesn’t work in Brazil?” No, it does not. In the district I live, you don’t have to walk a mile to find both children and adults who can not read. Why? Because, between school and employment, they would pick employment anytime. Several minors only attend to school because their parents say so, some of those parents even despise school themselves and are unwilling to attend. If they could have a “decent” life without learning to read, why would those adults (or their children) want to attend to school anyway? I also was like that, until I started to really like philosophy in middle school. But today, in a world where more and more education is needed, you either study… or develop an alternative way of income, even if that means producing child porn.

So, to finalize: try to see things through Japanese eyes. The “small” punishment suffered by the author of Rurouni Kenshin has a reason to be, for a nation which only criminalized child porn possession recently. The fact of those laws being more severe in our side of the globe doesn’t serve as absolute indicator that our laws are the “correct” ones. It just mean that our laws are American. Even if child porn continues to be a crime forever, is it really worth to punish adults (and minors) with years in jail, plus sex offender registering, because of it?

Oh, por falar em pedofilia, sabia que o criador de Samurai X foi pêgo com pornô infantil ontem?

Filed under: Notícias e política — Tags:, — Yure @ 22:55

Alguém tem que avisar Katrien que isso aconteceu; esse cara seria uma ótima adição ao Minor-Attracted Figures in History, especialmente porque ele confessa seus sentimentos pra polícia: “eu gostava de meninas do fundamental 2 até o segundo ano do ensino médio.” Fundamental dois, pra quem não sabe, é do sexto ao nono ano. Mas sabe? Depois de tudo o que eu estudei sobre esse assunto, depois de ter assistido quase todos os episódios de Samurai X, depois de saber que a idade de consentimento federal no Japão é 13 (embora possa ser maior dependendo do município), eu não acho errado ele não ter sido preso por isso. No Japão, a posse de pornografia infantil é punida com multa (ele vai pagar o equivalente a cerca de quatro mil reais), não com cadeia.

Como eu estudo relacionamentos entre adultos e menores de um ponto de vista mais científico e filosófico, eu passo a largo do problema da pornografia infantil. Não tenho nenhum interesse em estudar esse assunto profundamente, porque o considero de menor importância. Em todo caso, um cara que faz um mangá sobre paz, sobre amor, sobre história japonesa, sobre filosofia… quem leu ou assistiu Rurouni Kenshin sabe, ele não é mesmo uma pessoa ruim. Será que há razão pra ficar decepcionado com ele? O único jeito de saber é entendendo o que é e como funciona a pornografia infantil. Primeiramente, fico curioso com uma coisa: se a idade de consentimento em algumas prefeituras é treze e os vídeos que ele tinha mostram meninas de quinze anos, por que ele não foi pra um lugar onde a idade de consentimento é quinze e começou a ficar com uma adolescente legalmente? Oro!

Mas então. Para começar, é preciso entender que, para que algo seja considerado pornografia infantil, não há qualquer necessidade de sexo explícito. Atualmente, os maiores produtores de pornografia infantil são os próprios menores, que inclusive distribuem e consomem essa pornografia. “Onde?”, você pode se perguntar. Pela via das nudes. Fotos eróticas mostrando um menor de dezoito anos são pornografia infantil, mesmo que não haja sexo explícito, e mesmo que não haja adulto motivando o ato. A pessoa mais jovem a ser investigada por produção de pornografia infantil é um menino de cinco anos do Reino Unido. Mas como as autoridades pretendem lidar com o problema? Parando de perseguir esses menores por crimes que não os lesaram? Não, proibindo a venda de celular pra menores. Vê se faz algum sentido. Proteger alguém de algo inofensivo não é realmente proteção, mas controle. Há uma guerra acontecendo contra a sexualidade infantil. Ora, mas se os menores produzem e distribuem essa pornografia entre si, não fica claro que esses menores não estão sofrendo por causa disso? “E se a foto vazar?”, alguém pode perguntar. Beleza, deveríamos punir quem vazou a foto. É uma questão de bom senso. Pra quê essa proibição toda?

Isso me leva ao segundo problema: se a idade de consentimento no Japão é, no mínimo, treze, enquanto que no Brasil é catorze, porque a pornografia envolvendo menores entre catorze e dezessete anos ainda é uma ofensa criminal? “A ONU diz”, responderão alguns. Muito bem, mas a função da ONU é zelar pela paz mundial e evitar a terceira guerra mundial, que eu saiba. Como é que se intrometer na sexualidade dos outros povos serve a esses propósitos? Aliás, diga-se de passagem, a ONU faz um péssimo trabalho em zelar pela paz mundial. A recomendação da ONU é que nossa polícia militar seja extinta. Se as reuniões ocorressem na Rocinha, pensariam diferente. Amanhã, a Coreia do Norte vai disparar um míssil nos Estados Unidos e a guerra eclodirá numa boa, por cima de suas sanções e puritanismo. Quero ver como seu modelo de criança inocente vai parar esse míssil. Aliás, esse modelo só existe na cabeça de alguns adultos: se tem criança de cinco anos fotografando o negocinho e mostrando pros coleguinhas, então não existe essa de inocência, a menos que “inocência” seja falta de vergonha.

Então, num país em que a idade de consentimento pode ser bem baixa, o fato de ele ser meramente multado por posse de pornografia mostrando meninas de quinze anos, a qual poderia inclusive ter sido gravada e partilhada pelas próprias meninas, independente de um adulto, não parece algo de outro mundo, como querem os caras que comentaram no Kotaku. Foi uma ofensa criminal pequena. Mas só japoneses veem isso, uma vez são uma nação com padrões morais mais pragmáticos.

Mas, pra não dizer que estou fazendo propaganda favorável à legalização da pornografia infantil, eu quero dizer que há argumentos contra e a favor. E a única razão de eu ainda ser contra a legalização da pornografia infantil vem da minha própria escolha de profissão (professor).

Eu sei que um monte de guri só vai pra escola porque precisa de um diploma do ensino médio pra arrumar um emprego decente. Suponhamos que o pornô infantil fosse legalizado hoje. Amanhã, já haveria alguns arquivos em circulação legal. Aí um guri tem a brilhante ideia de vender essas fotos e vídeos. Se ele tivesse renda própria graças a isso (porque deve haver um monte de gente disposta a pagar pra ver), ao passo que ele vê a escola somente como uma etapa intermediária entre infância e emprego, será que ele não daria menos de si nos estudos? Se a prática se tornasse popular, e houvesse competição sincera entre os menores, a taxa de evasão em escolas de periferia dispararia. Quando eu falei isso pra um outro cara, ele perguntou “educação básica obrigatória não funciona no Brasil?” Não, não funciona. No bairro em que eu moro, não precisa procurar muito pra encontrar crianças e adultos analfabetos. Por quê? Porque, entre escola e emprego, ficam com o emprego. Há muitos menores que só vão pra escola porque os pais querem, sendo que esses mesmos pais não gostariam de ir pra escola apesar de serem também analfabetos. Eles já provaram a si mesmos que é possível se virar na vida sem saber ler, então pra quê aprender? Eu mesmo fui assim, antes de pegar gosto por filosofia no ensino médio. Mas hoje, num mundo em que a mão de obra capacitada tem prioridade, ou você estuda… ou desenvolve um meio de renda própria.

Então, pra terminar: tente ver as coisas com olhos de japonês. A punição “pequena” sofrida pelo criador de Samurai X tem razão de ser, pra uma nação que só criminalizou a posse de pornografia infantil recentemente. O fato de nossas leis serem mais severas não significa que elas estão corretas. Só quer dizer que são americanas. Mesmo que pornografia infantil tenha mesmo que ser crime, será que faz sentido punir adultos (e menores que produzem e distribuem esses arquivos) com cadeia ou medida sócio-educativa?

18 de fevereiro de 2018

Does the Bible forbids drinking?

Just a quick post. You see, I have access to the search terms that people use to reach this blog, so I know more or less what people are looking for. So, recently, I noticed an on-off stream of traffic coming from people concerned with what the Bible says about alcohol. So, I think I should give those tykes some few answers.

First of all, it’s not the first time that I notice people finding this blog by looking up lunatic search terms such as “what demon is present when I masturbate”, but it’s the first time I notice such a high interest in the problem of drinking. That’s because I live in Brazil and some churches here forbid alcohol consumption. Let’s start with the question that names this entry: no where. The Bible doesn’t forbid the consumption of alcohol, period. But I notice that some search queries suggest that some religious leaders, such as pastors, are explicitly teaching that it does. For example: one of the search queries is “is it true that the Bible says that we shouldn’t put even a gulp of alcohol in the mouth?”. That’s extremely specific. If I am right, some religious leaders are saying that there is biblical evidence to support that, while, in fact, there is none. On the contrary. So, I’m happy that people are looking those things up, because that means that some people are questioning what the preacher is saying. And that’s great: many of those people are just interested in your money anyway, so they pull new prohibitions from thin air, in hopes of making you feel super guilty for not keeping up with them, raising an urge to attain forgiveness the way they want you to, which means that they try to keep you in their church by making you scared of hell. And, if they need to exploit the fact that the Bible is a huge document that no everyone has time to read, so no one knows what it actually contains, so be it.

The most common drink in biblical accounts is wine. In Genesis 27:25, we see Isaac, son of Abraham and father to Jacob, drink wine with no problem, wine given by his son. In Exodus 29:40, as well as in Leviticus 23:12 and Numbers 15:5-10, among other verses, we see that wine was accepted as offering to God. If wine was an “evil” drink, God wouldn’t accept that as offering. However, wine, because it makes a person feel “elated”, wasn’t supposed to be consumed by people who worked at the temple, at least not before duty, as we see in Leviticus 10:9. Another situation in which wine can not be consumed is when the person vows to not drink it, as we see in Numbers 6:3. But such vow is never mandatory. If I vow, indeed, I must abstain, but even such vow may only be up for a limited time (Numbers 6:20).

Another important thing to notice is that, if wine was an evil drink, Jesus wouldn’t have transformed water in wine, as we see in the second chapter of the Gospel According to John. A lot of people drank from that wine, which was of the best quality (John 2:9).

Someone might ask: “did that wine have alcohol?”. Yes, in Brazil, there’s a lot of a people who think that the wine consumed back then could be 100% alcohol-free. When everyone was speaking in their own native language, and yet everyone was understanding each other, someone asked if those people didn’t drink wine (Acts 2:13). That’s because, from an outsider’s point of view, a scene in which everyone is speaking a different language, while still managing to have an harmonious conversation, must be a prank. Ephesians 5:18 also says that we shouldn’t get “drunk” with wine, but it’s impossible to get drunk from drinking an alcohol-free beverage. That means that the wine back then had alcohol. Even if simple distillation was used, there would be no way, with the technology available back then, to fully isolate the alcohol that is present in a given amount of wine. Even if such method were to be employed, the wine wouldn’t lose all of it’s alcohol.

Last, but not least, wine is recommended by Paul in 1 Timothy 5:23, not to mention it’s also a mandatory element in the Lord’s Supper, which is a solemn christian ritual done in memory of Jesus’ sacrifice. So, the Bible doesn’t forbid wine, but actually encourages it’s responsible consumption. Your preacher is lying to you.

So, knowing that wine isn’t prohibited by the Bible, that wine is actually endorsed by the Bible and that wine is an alcoholic beverage, we can conclude that alcohol consumption isn’t sin, but, at most, you should avoid being drunk. Drink moderately. Are you happy now?

After writing this, I hope the readers who find my blog develop a more critical approach to the teaching given in the church they attend to. While that’s not an exclusively protestant problem (there’s a lot of gratuitous prohibitions among catholics too), remember that the requisites to be a prostestant preacher are really low, that’s why there’s so many of them. A lot of them never even read the Bible completely, not even once, while I read it completely three times already. And we know that faith sells. So, if you see your local pastor saying something fishy, at least look up online to see if what he says has biblical foundation. If he is quoting false references, admit to yourself that you are being fooled. Leave that church and go do something else.

13 de fevereiro de 2018

Was it harrassment?

Filed under: Notícias e política, Saúde e bem-estar — Tags:, , — Yure @ 22:29

When I was in college, something rather odd happened to me while I climbed upstairs alone to go to the library. A girl, one of my friends, came towards me, in downstairs direction, while I walked upstairs. When she got close enough, she pat my butt. I continued my way, but, when I reached the top, I looked back at her. She was smiling playfully. I may have pulled a silly, or maybe indifferent face, but I admit that it wasn’t a bad experience. Actually, that was the closest I ever got to get laid anyway. Sad, isn’t it?

So, knowing that:

  • The act didn’t harm my body, my mind or my image, but;
  • Was a butt slap, an act frequently seen as “libidinous”, often embarrassing;

I ask: was it sexual harrassment? If yes, then harrassment is an objective concept; otherwise, it’s a subjective concept. If harrassment is an objective concept, then it’s problematic: in fact, at least in my case, it was a victimless crime. I would never report her, because she was young, had a bright future to pursue. How could I report her over something so small? I would need to be a money-thirsty mercenary. I’m only disclosing this because I don’t know where she lives, I forgot her name and there’s no records to prove that the episode has happened, so it would be impossible to start an investigation against her.

If subjective, then something may or may not be harrassment solely depending on who received the action, their judgement on the issue, not the nature of the act. For example, a man was reported for sexual harrassment because he, while taking a picture with a woman, kept her close by her waist. According to the woman, he squeezed her waist twice, which caused her such a profound psychological damage that it was like her whole person had been erased. That means that the man was reported for hugging her by the waist and giving squeezes, which supposedly traumatized the woman. But that’s not an act often seen as “libidinous”, nor is it stereotypically “embarrassing”.

If harrassment is an objective concept, we need to draw a sharp line between what’s libidinous and what is not, like I suggested to be done for statutory rape, in a way to not punish harmless acts. If it’s an subjective concept, it must become objective, to avoid allowing a person to prosecute another solely on a particular interpretation of the act, almost as if the accuser had powers of a judge.

Foi assédio?

Filed under: Notícias e política, Saúde e bem-estar — Tags:, , — Yure @ 22:16

Quando eu estava na faculdade, aconteceu um negócio bem extraordinário comigo enquanto eu andava sozinho na escada que dá para a biblioteca. Uma menina, amiga minha, veio na direção contrária, descendo a escada enquanto eu a subia. Quando ela passou por mim, ela deu um tapa no meu traseiro. Eu continuei meu caminho, mas, quando eu cheguei ao topo da escada, eu olhei pra baixo. Ela, de baixo, olhou pra mim sorridente. Eu meio que fiz uma cara indiferente, talvez meio boba, mas admito que não foi uma experiência ruim. Afinal, foi o mais perto que cheguei de dormir com uma mulher. Triste, não é?

Então, sabendo que:

  • O ato não prejudicou meu corpo, meu psicológico ou minha imagem, mas;
  • Foi um tapa no traseiro, um ato frequentemente tido por “libidinoso” e, muitas vezes embaraçoso;

Eu pergunto: o que aconteceu foi assédio? Se sim, assédio é um conceito objetivo; se não, assédio é um conceito subjetivo. Se assédio é um conceito objetivo, é um conceito problemático: com efeito, pelo menos no meu caso, seria um crime sem vítima. Eu nunca iria denunciá-la pelo que aconteceu, porque ela era jovem e tinha um futuro pela frente. Como é que eu ia arruinar a vida dela por algo tão pequeno? Só se eu fosse um mercenário a fim do dinheiro dela. Eu só estou falando isto agora porque eu não sei onde ela mora, não lembro seu nome e não há gravações que comprovem o que ocorreu, então não daria pra começar uma investigação contra ela.

Se subjetivo, então algo ser ou não assédio depende totalmente de quem sofreu a ação, dos seus sentimentos, não da natureza do ato. Por exemplo, um cara foi denunciado por assédio sexual porque ele, ao tirar uma foto com a moça, lhe pegou pela cintura. Segundo a moça, os dois apertos na cintura causaram um dano psicológico tão profundo que foi como se sua pessoa tivesse sido apagada. Então, o cara foi denunciado por abraçar a moça pela cintura e apertar-lhe ali enquanto posava para uma foto, o que supostamente traumatizou a moça. Mas esse não é um ato tido por “libidinoso” e nem “embaraçoso”.

Se o conceito de assédio é objetivo, é preciso desenhar bem uma linha entre o que é e o que não é libidinoso, como eu sugeri que fosse feito com a lei de estupro de vulnerável, pra que a lei não puna atos inofensivos. Se o conceito é subjetivo, isto é, se é crime quando eu me sinto ofendido, precisa deixar de ser e se tornar objetivo, para evitar que uma pessoa possa processar outra por uma interpretação particular de um evento, quase como se o acusador tivesse poderes de juiz.

11 de fevereiro de 2018

“Demons”, by Huib Kort and G. G.

Filed under: Notícias e política, Organizações — Tags:, , — Yure @ 11:26

“Demons: the utopian dream of safety” was written by Huib Kort and G. G. Below are some paraphrased thoughts found in their text.

  1. Our society has a series of problems, such as crime and violence, which seem to be isolated issues.
  2. But what if something in our society is fundamentally wrong, which makes all those “symptoms” point to a bigger, underlying evil?
  3. What if some of the things that our society fights against aren’t really problems?
  4. Pointing out specific problems and attacking them is an attempt to distract the population, so they don’t see that it’s our society’s model that is actually decaying.
  5. We, as society, feel scared, but that’s not the first time it happens: we felt scared during the second world war, we felt scared during the cold war, we feel scared now for other reasons.
  6. Fear is a common emotion when society is conservative.
  7. Anyone can lose the happiness they acquired with hard work, anyone can lose it at any time, that causes insecurity.
  8. People often carry an amount of fear that is not proportional to the reality of crime.
  9. No crime happens without a reason.
  10. But people are afraid of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
  11. People are also scared of the unknown, specially if “unknown” means “immigrants”.
  12. The reasons to fear immigrants often lack solid empirical foundation.
  13. The violent sexual crimes against children are also rare, compared to other crimes, but the effort that is spent into combating that problem also isn’t proportional to the issue.
  14. Disproportional fears exist in all of us, regardless of our level of education.
  15. Those fears are often centered in current affairs, such as nuclear threat.
  16. The lives of many are led by fear.
  17. There’s “press” for the elite and “journalism” for working classes.
  18. Media plays a role in instilling fear.
  19. The media must inform people, but media also needs money, so it turns news into entertainment, which keeps a good cash flow.
  20. That also causes a quality drop in TV shows, including a drop in their ability to inform (but a increase in their ability to gossip).
  21. A candidate that manages to lure people into thinking that he is capable of ending violence once and for all can get a lot of votes, because people have the feeling that politics is the way to completely end violence.
  22. The atmosphere of fear and political impotence, leveraged by media’s selective information, makes people do their own justice (“mob justice“).
  23. And media loves mobs, because that means more stuff to report on TV.
  24. Politicians often promise things that are not allowed by the local democratic system, causing the population to confront them with their broken promises.
  25. Media is not impartial.
  26. Some laws are written after generalizing few examples.
  27. That’s a sign of opportunism and a sign that the population can’t see very far, when it comes to their history and consequences of a law.
  28. Hysteria can cause more damage than the event that originates it.
  29. Any single person who commits a hideous crime becomes the single “model” to be taken in consideration (for example: a teen commited a mass murder in school, that means that all teens are capable of that and must be controlled).
  30. If the person who committed the crime was an immigrant, for example, their behavior will be generalized to all immigrants, which is unfair.
  31. Suddenly, all men are pedophiles.
  32. Our society is parmenidic: it either is or not, with nothing in between.
  33. That’s seen as good.
  34. Whoever points out that not even half of men are potential rapists, that there are muslims who aren’t terrorists, and things of that nature, is also demonized.
  35. Society becomes a battle between good and evil, with both sides viewing themselves as the “good” side.
  36. “Rapist”, “molester” and “pedophile” have become the same thing.
  37. Further repression is demanded.
  38. Nonetheless, repression is not working.
  39. The actual goal is protecting status quo, which is profitable, from social change.
  40. It’s the status quo (politics, media and prevailing ideologies in society) that is fundamentally wrong, with everything else being symptoms of that bigger problem.
  41. A possible exit would be allowing dissenting narratives to flourish.
  42. It’s possible to think without aid of mass media.
  43. Everyone says that media is manipulative, but few are willing to take a critical look at the media they consume.

“Demons”, de Huib Kort e G. G.

Filed under: Notícias e política, Organizações — Tags:, , — Yure @ 11:13

“Demons: the utopian dream of safety” foi escrito por Huib Kort e G. G. Abaixo, alguns pensamentos parafraseados desse texto.

  1. Nossa sociedade tem uma série de problemas, como crimes e violência, que parecem isolados.
  2. Mas será que não há algo fundamentalmente errado na nossa sociedade e que torna esses problemas meros “sintomas” de um mal muito maior?
  3. E se algumas das coisas contra as quais nossa sociedade luta não forem realmente problemas?
  4. Apontar problemas isolados e combatê-los é uma tentativa de distração, para que o povo não veja que é o modelo social geral que está decadente.
  5. Nós, como sociedade, vivemos com medo, mas essa nem é a primeira vez que isso acontece: tivemos medo na segunda guerra mundial, tivemos medo na guerra fria, agora temos medo por outras razões.
  6. Medo é uma emoção comum em regimes conservadores.
  7. Qualquer um pode perder a felicidade que obteve com trabalho duro, e pode perdê-la a qualquer instante, o que nos dá uma sensação de insegurança.
  8. O medo das pessoas pode ser desproporcional à realidade do crime.
  9. Nenhum crime ocorre sem razão.
  10. Mas pessoas têm medo de estar no lugar errado, na hora errada.
  11. Pessoas também temem o desconhecido, especialmente se “o desconhecido” significar “imigrantes”.
  12. As razões para temê-los podem não ter sólida fundação empírica.
  13. Crimes sexuais violentos contra crianças também são ocorrências raras, comparados com outros tipos de crime, mas os esforços para combater esse tipo de violência também são desproporcionais à realidade.
  14. Medos desproporcionais existem independentemente do grau de educação da pessoa.
  15. Esses medos frequentemente estão centrados em problemas atuais, como a ameaça nuclear.
  16. O medo é a emoção que guia a vida de muita gente.
  17. Existe “periódico” pra elite e “jornal” pra classe trabalhadora.
  18. A mídia pode fundar e manter medos desproporcionais.
  19. A mídia deve informar o povo, mas também precisa de dinheiro, então ela transforma as notícias em entretenimento.
  20. Isso causa uma queda na qualidade dos programas de TV, incluindo uma queda em sua capacidade de informar (e um aumento na sua capacidade de fofocar).
  21. Um candidato que seja capaz de convencer o povo de que ele acabará com a violência é capaz de obter muitos votos, porque a sociedade tem a sensação de que a violência pode ser completamente eliminada para sempre por meio da política.
  22. Essa atmosfera de medo e de impotência política, incentivada por informação seletiva por parte da mídia, faz com que o povo comece a fazer justiça a sua maneira.
  23. E a mídia gosta quando alguém faz justiça com as próprias mãos, porque isso significa mais espetáculo pra mostrar na TV.
  24. Políticos prometem coisas que o sistema democrático não permite, de forma que a população depois os confronta por suas promessas quebradas.
  25. A mídia não é imparcial.
  26. Existe legislação escrita com base em eventos insuficientes.
  27. Isso é sinal de oportunismo e também sinal de que a população é míope, em relação às consequências de suas escolhas e em relação a sua própria história.
  28. Histeria pode causar mais dano do que o evento que a causa.
  29. Uma pessoa que comete um crime grave acaba se tornando o único exemplo a ser levado em consideração nas deliberações (por exemplo: um jovem cometeu um assassinato, logo todos os jovens são capazes de matar e precisam ser policiados).
  30. Se a pessoa que cometeu o crime for um imigrante, então seu comportamento será generalizado a todos os imigrantes, por exemplo.
  31. De repente, todos os homens são pedófilos.
  32. A nossa sociedade é como Parmênides: é ou não é, sem gradações.
  33. Isso é visto como bom.
  34. Quem aponta o fato de nem metade dos homens serem estupradores potenciais, de que há muçulmanos que não são terroristas, entre outras coisas, é igualmente odiado.
  35. A sociedade torna-se então um campo de guerra entre o bem e o mal, com ambos os lados se vendo como o lado “bom”.
  36. “Estuprador”, “molestador” e “pedófilo” se tornaram a mesma coisa.
  37. Há demanda por cada vez mais repressão.
  38. E no entanto, reprimir não está funcionando.
  39. O verdadeiro objetivo é proteger o estabelecido, porque o estabelecido dá dinheiro, para que o estabelecido não sofra com mudanças sociais.
  40. É o estabelecido (política, mídia e ideologias dominantes na sociedade) que está fundamentalmente errado, com todo o resto sendo sintomas desse problema maior.
  41. Uma solução possível é permitir que discursos dissidentes floresçam.
  42. É possível pensar sem a TV.
  43. Todos falam que a mídia é manipuladora, mas nem por isso a olhamos de forma crítica.
Older Posts »

Crie um website ou blog gratuito no

%d blogueiros gostam disto: