Item Student editor who tweeted that ‘women don’t have penises’ is fired from university journal in transgender row

A student editor at a top university has been fired in a transphobia row after he tweeted that ‘women don’t have penises’. Angelos Sofocleous, assistant editor at Durham University’s philosophy journal ‘Critique’, was sacked from his post after just three days for writing a tweet deemed ‘transphobic’ by fellow students. Mr Sofocleous, 24, from Cyprus, faced disciplinary action last month after he re-tweeted an article by The Spectator on his Twitter titled ‘Is it a crime to say women don’t have penises?’, with the comment: ‘RT if women don’t have penises’. The postgraduate philosophy and psychology student was dismissed from his position at the university after the tweet sparked outrage.

We’ve had many other items proving Reality is now illegal in England. This one is not surprising.

What’s unique about this item is that the “outrage” (acknowledging most who use the word are lying) came from the “free speech society Humanist Students.” Seems “former chair of LGBT Humanists Christopher Ward” said Sofocleous’s tweet “was ‘factually incorrect’ and not ‘worthy of a debate’.”

Factually incorrect? Yes, sir. Factually.

Everybody knows, and it’s true here anyway, that “humanist” is a euphemism for atheists. So we have atheists leading the way in denying Reality. Now we have atheists insisting that some women have penises is a fact.

Atheism is, of course, a triumph of the will. If you can willfully deny God, you can deny Reality with ease. Even a moment’s thought will confirm to you that it is those people who deny God who lead the way in denying Reality.

Item Beware: transparency rule is a Trojan Horse (Thanks to Jonathan Witt for the tip.)

Last month, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule to “ensure that the regulatory science underlying Agency actions is fully transparent, and that underlying scientific information is publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation”. The alleged justification is a crisis in science over replicability and reproducibility. At face value, the proposal might seem reasonable. It isn’t. Many EPA watchers believe that the rule targets long-term epidemiological studies that linked air pollution to shorter lives and were used to justify air-quality regulations. In my view, the rule could keep that and other high-quality evidence from being used to shape regulations, even if there are legitimate reasons, such as patient privacy, why some data cannot be made public. It could potentially retroactively exclude an enormous amount of respected evidence. This would make the EPA less able to serve its function “to protect human health and the environment”. The window for speaking up is closing fast.

In other words, please don’t them look at the evidence because when they do we might have to abandon the policies we claimed flowed from that evidence. “Trust us,” she seems to be saying, “For we know what is best for you. And we don’t want you to know why we know.” Also, it can’t be a coincidence that a woman who looks like a horse warns of horsiness.

Item One-third of adults may need blood pressure drugs under new guidelines (Thanks to Forbes Tuttle for the tip.)

One out of every three U.S. adults has high blood pressure that should be treated with medication, under guidelines recently adopted by the two leading heart health associations. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association redefined high blood pressure at 130/80 in November, down from the previous level of 140/90, based on new evidence supporting a lower threshold. Under the new guidelines, nearly 46 percent of U.S. adults now would be considered to have high blood pressure, a new study reported. Further, 36 percent would be recommended for blood pressure medication, the study authors said… Full implementation of the new guidelines would mean 156,000 fewer deaths each year, and 340,000 fewer heart attacks, strokes and other heart-related ailments, the researchers concluded.

Well, why not lower it to 125/75 and be even extra super safe? We will have 156,387 fewer deaths each year (based on my statistical estimate). And 156,387 is more than 156,000. And really, isn’t it worth it if we save even one life? Of course, even more will need medication, which either they or the government will have to pay for. Americans are increasing fat and unfit as all know. But why not insist they get off their duffs and stop eating crap instead of ingesting expensive drugs?

Share this: Facebook

Reddit

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

More

Tumblr

LinkedIn



WhatsApp

Print



