Interesting stuff – 2017-05-15

Here’s some more interesting stuff, including one real head-scratcher.

In the ear of “new tolerance” divergent convictions will not be tolerated. A midwife in Sweden discovered this when she refused to perform abortions. Note that her “crime” was not trying to stop an abortion, protesting against abortion, or anything like that. Her crime was merely a refusal to participate.

So much for conscientious objection; you will be assimilated. This is the face of “progress.”

Speaking of being assimilated, a guy in Winnipeg thought it would be funny to get that as a personalized license plate.


It was mounted in an obviously Star Trek themed frame but, somehow, the social justice warriors discovered that natives might be offended by that. After all, natives were forced to assimilate, and such a license plate (even decked out in Star Trek bling) would conjure up memories of the early settlers.

I know what you’re thinking and I, too, hoped this was just a joke. It’s not a joke, it’s Canada.

Canada is rapidly becoming a secular nation as people abandon organized religion in droves. Sort of. The picture is a little more murky than that, according to this study. People are less likely to adhere to a specific religion, but only about 1 in 5 are strictly non-religious. Everybody else – to greater or lesser extents – believes in some kind of deity and various other supernatural realities. The overwhelming majority of Canadians retain a belief system which is at odds with strict Atheism / Materialism / Naturalism.

A couple of other interesting observations:

  • I always thought of Quebec as fiercely non-religious, but they fell behind both Alberta and BC for proportion of non-religious.
  • As with other research I’ve seen, men are far more likely to disavow religious commitment compared to women. Makes me want to ask what the church is doing wrong…

So next time you hear about Canada being a “secular” nation, ask whoever said that to explain how 20% get to decide what our nation “is” for the rest of us. That’s even worse than our political system that delivers majority governments to parties that get fewer than 40% of the vote.

Canada’s polygamy law is being put to the test. Which should surprise… nobody. I was wagering with a friend whether polygamy, incest, pedophilia or bestiality would be next on the progressive agenda to gain widespread acceptance. Necrophilia is probably much further down the line. Polygamy just pulled into the lead. And once the Supreme Court manages to find a way to define this is a violation of their Charter rights (again, this should surprise nobody) then all the faithful Canadians will nod their head in collective obedience to the dictates of the Supreme Court.

According to this research perhaps the ideal of monogamy is unrealistic anyway. The basis of their conclusion is fascinating,

“Monogamy is a standard that we all think is appropriate, and infidelity is uniformly condemned. Few people think it’s acceptable to have multiple partners in a committed relationship,” says Lucia O’Sullivan, psychology professor at the University of New Brunswick, and sexuality and relationships researcher. “But the amazing paradox about that are the high rates of infidelity.”

In a 2015 study published in the Journal of Sex Research, O’Sullivan and study co-author Ashley Thompson found that 30 to 75 per cent of men and 20 to 68 per cent of women in the western world have experienced some sort of infidelity.

Yeah, you got that right. The logic is simple; if everybody is doing it then it must be “normal.” Everybody is doing infidelity, therefore infidelity must be “normal.” But if it is “normal” then our obsession with monogamy must be “abnormal.”

Science through peer pressure. Makes sense.

How long before polygamy will be identified as an option on Facebook, Apple, Twitter and others?

But science would never get so tainted and guided by that which is politically correct, would it? After all, scientists are objective and neutral, or at least the scientific process (peer review, duplicating findings, etc) minimizes any possibility of subjective bias.

Here’s a brief summary of a book about a scientist who has found herself on both sides of activism, and is intimately familiar with the landscape where science intersects social interests. Yes, even scientists can bow to social pressure. They are still human.

Ready for a real headscratcher? This one seriously left me bewildered for quite some time and I’m still pondering the implications of it.

Lesbian youth are more likely to get pregnant, and gay youth are more likely to impregnate a girl, than straight youth.



By definition no homosexual act has ever resulted in a pregnancy which means these youth – who self-identify as homosexual – are having heterosexual intercourse. That’s enough of a headscratcher right there, but the implications go even deeper than that. First of all, where is the line between homosexual and bi-sexual? After all, wouldn’t somebody who played in both games be bi-sexual, not strictly homosexual? Yet those categories are still considered distinct, both were options in the survey, and still “homosexuals” were dealing with unexpected levels of teen pregnancy.

Ok, for sake of argument let’s say a person could still be rightly considered “homosexual” if they only had heterosexual intercourse very infrequently relative to their normal routine. What’s a reasonable number? 5%? If one out of every 20 sexual encounters were heterosexual in nature that doesn’t define them as “bi-sexual” but still “homosexual.” They just happen to like to spice things up a bit every now and then with a little variety.

Let’s also assume – due to the fact that human biological processes don’t differentiate based on a person’s mental preferences – that a heterosexual act is equally likely to result in pregnancy whether those engaged in the act consider themselves heterosexual or not. In other words, homosexuals are not at increased odds of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy when they dabble in heterosexual acts, compared to the odds of those who consider themselves heterosexual.

The pregnancy rate is therefore going to be a function of how often one rolls the dice by engaging in heterosexual intercourse. And because the same odds will apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals then, in theory, the pregnancy rate for homosexuals should be approximately 5% that of the pregnancy rate for heterosexuals (assuming the totally made-up number I previously gave). After all, they only dabble in heterosexuality 5% of the time, by my completely arbitrary definition.

But that assumes heterosexuals and homosexuals are having sexual encounters at the same rate. The fact that the pregnancy rate among homosexuals is higher than 5% means homosexuals are more frequently engaging in sexual intercourse than heterosexuals. If the pregnancy rate were (hypothetically) the same between homosexuals and heterosexuals then, according to the math, homosexuals would be having 20X as much sex as heterosexuals. Then the 5% of time that they had heterosexual intercourse would expose them to the same probabilistic rate of pregnancy as heterosexuals.

But their pregnancy rate is not the same: it is higher! According to the chart it’s about 3X as high as for heterosexuals. So that means instead of having 20X as much sex as heterosexuals, homosexuals would have to be having about 60X as much sex as heterosexuals!

Other studies referenced at the link pin the increased pregnancy rate of homosexuals at between 2X and 7X that of heterosexuals. Do the math on how much sex is required to produce those results!

I suspect that even the most ardent sexual progressive will agree that there is something unhealthy about youth having that much sex. We might joke that, when it comes to sex, “the more the merrier,” but surely we still possess enough common sense to look at a situation like this and see the risks.