The final downfall of Care2 is coming

About 21 years ago, a new web community called Care2 was created as a means for liberal and environmental activists to come together and share information about their causes. I joined it in late 2004 and was an active member of it for nearly a decade. Over the years, I made many wonderful friends in it, some of whom I am still linked to in Facebook. I also made many enemies.

Continue reading

Leaving Care2, and returning

Last week, as a result of my earlier battle with my former friend Sally H, I became so disgusted with Care2 as a web community that I decided to completely leave it. I transferred ownership of my Evolution Education group to my most trusted and beloved friend Mari Enchanted Basque and deleted my original account.

Immediately there was an outcry from my wife and some of my closest and oldest Care2 friends, who then pleaded with me to return. After a day or so, I relented and formed a new Care2 account to start all over. Mari then appointed me a host and owner of Evolution Education again

Like Silly Old Bear, I am sick unto death of all the conspiracies, backstabbing, and attempts at personal destruction among the current Care2 membership. It is time for the Care2 admin to DRASTICALLY change its policies and work hard to stamp out such behavior if their community is to be a truly safe place in the future for social and political activism. The current policies do not work!

The sad downfall of Silly Old Bear in Care2

Silly Old Bear, also known as Henric Jensen, is one of my best online friends. He is Jewish, Swedish, married, a transexual, and one of the best human rights activists I’ve ever known. He was also one of the most hated people in Care2. Hated because he was a firm opponent of Israel-bashing, which he saw as anti-Semetic, and was just as eager to defending men’s rights even before angry feminists who seemed to have a grudge against all men. Continue reading

A fake expert vs real ones on global warming

A global warming denialist known as Judy Cross has been storming the web community Care2 for over a year, posting propaganda on her beliefs. Here’s an example of her rantings:

“This is a lucid, logical, well-researched 32-page doc, compiled by long time IPCC expert reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray, explaining why the current claims of man-made global warming are a “global scam”. ”

Oh, really? Well, I proceeded to dismantle the credibility of that paper.

Continue reading

A clueless pro-America zealot

In the Care2 group titled Hot Debates and Shocking News, which is one of the oldest and most respected groups in Care2, a member named Simon W posted a link to a story about supermodel Naomi Campbell visiting Venezuela, ruled by Hugo Chavez, to check out the reforms he has made under his socialist government. While I find some of Chavez’s actions towards his political opponents highly questionable, I found it commendable that someone in America, rather than just take her government’s propaganda at face value, would actually go to Venezuela to check out the facts for herself. But this did not seem to impress one bigoted observer.

Tony S: i didn’t respect her much before … i certainly respect her less now … reminds me of the old billy martin line … ” one’s a born liar, the other convicted”

Later, he said: well i’m sure simon put this post up because he is a fan of chavez … but to me chavez is an enemy to the u.s. and a tyrant in his own country. campbell’s visit to me and other celebs who have gone there, just make me sick. well pretty much most of hollywood makes me sick. but to me it reminds me of hanoi jane cuddling up with the enemy .. maybe not that bad, but close.  any visit gives him propaganda and a look of validation. and like i said … chavez is a born liar, campbell convicted… if these are hero’s to anyone that’s pretty sad.

So I answered him with one of my deadly “brief and to the point” replies.

Dale Husband: And you think Bush Jr is any better than Chavez, Tony S? If so, you are no less naive than Naomi Campbell.

The Blunder from Down Under

An Australian member of Care2 known as Freediver has been a pain in my @$$ for nearly 2 1/2 years. He is mentioned in this earlier blog of mine:

Among other disgraces, he opposes the teaching of evolution as science in high schools, favors the harvesting of wild animals as an alternative to eating meat from factory farmed livestock, and even champions whaling, which is totally unnecessary since all the things that whales provide can come from other sources, whether natural or artificial. His arrogant manner of expression is highly offensive to many other Care2 members, who see him as a useless buffoon. But he somehow is possessed by delusions of grandure typical of sociopaths.

Continue reading

An anti-Zionist Jew?

A few days ago, another member of Care2 introduced himself to me as “an anti-Zionist Jew” and he stated that Israel “has been a brutal, vicious, occupying, racist bully since day one.”

Since Jews are not a race (the idea that they are a race cames from anti-Semites, not the Jews themselves), the idea that Israel is in any way a racist state is moot. It does have policies favoring Jews over non-Jews, but likewise most Arab states have policies favoring Muslims over non-Muslims. Yet Israel-bashers never discuss that fact.

I looked at his profile and saw that his religion was listed as “Athiest”.

I would suggest that this person’s hostility to God-centered religions is a bigger factor in his dim view of Israel than anything that Israel might have done in fighting against its Arab enemies. But what do I know? I’m just an agnostic who is wary of all expressions of anti-Semitism.

If the state of Israel had not been founded, the Jews living in the Holy Land would have remained a minority in an Arab dominated state ruling their own ancestral homeland, just as they had been for centuries in the past. Somehow, that makes no sense to me.

Assuming the worst of others

In June of 2007, I learned that a Care2 member had died violently. I was shocked at this news, and wondered if the member’s Care2 profile was to be removed as a result of his death. I asked a question to that effect in Care2 Feedback and Suggestions, and then another member sent me a message calling me a “heartless SOB”. I was amazed at this vulgar language, and sent a reply back to this member stating that “your sarcasm is not appropriate at this time.” I NEVER would have called for the dead member’s profile to be removed, and was disturbed that anyone would even think that of me.

It seems to me that if people already hate me, then anything I might do, however innocent, will be twisted by the haters in the worst possible way simply for the sake of bashing me, and that any attempt I make to defend myself against the haters causes them and those who wrongfully sympathize with the haters to attack me more! To me, this sort of attitude is the same as racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, or any other form of bigotry. It is unethical and should be tempered by reason and tolerance. I’ve just about had it with trying to figure people out and why they make other people targets. If I had defamed the dead person in some way, I’d understand the slamming I got over him. But I firmly beleive that I was lied about by another member and I have no tolerance for that. And my proving that I was lied about should have given the supporters of that other person pause about the position they took, but instead they attacked me again for DEFENDING MYSELF! What they are really saying, in essence, is “Hey, Dale, do the rest of us a favor, and SHUT UP even if we slander you all over the place!” You might as well murder me, then. I don’t lie about anyone, period, and no one can prove otherwise!

Three opponents, three different results

A few months ago, I started a discussion in a Care2 group on the need to use scientific methods to test ethical standards. Before you begin reading that, look at this:

Now we will proceed with the discussion itself:

I had to deal with three different opponents in this discussion, as well as several others who did not oppose me outright but merely asked questions or made helpful comments. The first opponent was CheWorks L, who is also known as Ted K. His comments were as follows:

CheWorks: “how can we base ethics on what may be a myth?  religion has no place in ethics.”

I saw this and went “HUH???” until I remembered that CheWorks was a Communist, who thus regards all religion as serving the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes and thus unethical. Of course, people like Dr Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi might strongly disagree with that simplistic view. I’m always amazed that Communists regard all religion as irrational, yet they themselves are so dogmatic about what Karl Marx wrote.

Dale Husband:  “Religion was the ONLY basis for ethics in most ancient societies because there was no conception of science or scientific methods in them back then. So religion served a good purpose then. My argument is that we need to go beyond that now.”

CherWorks: “Maybe you are mixing up religion with spirituality, Dale. Science proves there are ethical standards such as recycling.  Would God tell us to recycle?  No.  But nature, a spiritualist, would tell us that we need to respect the environment. Nowhere more than in the Judeo-Christian tradition do I see a pathetic God trying to gain respect.  This has nothing to do with ethics. Nopwadays religion supports wealth at any cost, which menas enslaving 99% of the human population.  This is hardly ethical.” (sic)

Later, CheWorks said: “You seem to be everywhere at the same time and rather confusing. Science cannot dictate ethics, but it can demonstrate that some ethical acts are good for the public.  For example, free health care provides for a healthy population.  I’m not sure if you’re in agreement.”

Dale Husband: “I’m certainly not asking that anyone dictate ethics dogmatically. That’s what religions do.  Scientists should not. What I’m calling for is that any ethical ideas be tested scientifically before they be proclaimed to be valid by anyone. Only fear of their values being discredited would motivate, for example, laws against gay marriage by people who insist that homosexuality is immoral without actually dealing with homosexuals as people. If empirical analysis proves that tolerance of homosexuality leads to social disruption, then the anti-gay bigots would have a case. [And] ethical standards of some kind, such as honesty or open-mindedness, are essential for scientists to do their work. That’s why I trust the findings of the scientific commmunity above any religious dogma, because they tend to go where the evidence leads them and are not afraid to challenge conventional ideas, even among themselves. That’s the opposite of what religious communities are known for. Hope that clears things up!”

CheWorks: “We seem to be on a similar page. Can you please explain how science can help homophobes? Is it by showing that they are of the same chromosomes as heterosexuals?”

Interesting that he accepts my premise as valid and moves the discussion forward by bringing in an issue for which it would be a good demonstration of the truth of my idea.

Dale Husband: “Science is still investigating the causes of homosexuality, but if a physical cause was indeed found, it would blow away forever the notion that gays follow a lifestyle that is their free choice, and then there would be no legal basis for them to be punished for expressing their true nature. Homosexuality could no longer rightfully be called a “sin”. But since so many people do not accept evolution as true for religious reasons, they won’t accept those findings either.”

I guess I shouldn’t have mentioned evolution, because I also had to deal with an anti-evolutionist named Freediver who has been a routine thorn in my side for over two years.

Freediver: “Science has no contribution to make to ethics. Those scientists who belive it does just have delusions of grandeur. Stephen Jay Gould agrees with me on this.”

Right from that opening statement, Freediver had already lost the debate. Quite simply, it is a fallacy to make personal attacks against either your opponent or anyone else instead of really dealing with the issues. And appealing to a supposed authority figure like Dr. Gould is another common fallacy. Plus, didn’t Freediver know that Gould is already DEAD?! Finally, for Freediver to state that Gould agrees with HIM about anything seems to stem from an attitude of extreme egotism. I considered ignoring the idiot, but I decided to engage him for a while instead to give him more rope to hang himself with. And as it turned out, I was not disappointed.

Freediver: “Now you definitely don’t know what you are talking about.” “…appeals to reason tend not to work with Dale, who constantly insists that I provide examples of other people who agree with me, rather than focussing on the merits of the argument. It is kind of ironic (or is that hypocritical?) that he would commit this fallacy repeatedly, in it’s truest form, despite me continuously pointing out his error, then pull me up the first time I come close to using it. It shows that he recognises the error, just not when he commits it.”

Freediver was lying here. What I have demanded he do is support his claims about evolution not being a scientific theory by showing websites or other references that indicate that most scientists agree with him about how he defines science, to prove he didn’t make his definition all up on his own. He never did, except for a website he created to showcase his own writings on evolution and other subjects. He knows quite well that most of the references he’d have to make otherwise would be Creationist websites. Most scientists do not follow his narrow standard of what science is, of course.

Dale Husband: “Is it possible that you are motivated, in your opposition to me on both evolution and ethical issues, by your extreme religious bias? In any case, I’m not going to waste any more time attempting to explain what should have been obvious. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your business.”   “You don’t appeal to reason, really. You appeal only to the prejudices you happen to have and hope that some people in your audience happen to share. In many cases, you fail to make an impression precisely because most people see right through your empty claims for what they really are. I don’t believe you are really stupid, but you seem to think most of us are if you keep putting out arguments like you’ve been doing all these years and expect them to be taken seriously. You overestimate your own powers of reason by blindly assuming whatever you say must be right. You never learn anything from others with that attitude.”

There followed a long period in which Freediver threw out one argument after another in a desperate effort to save his position. Clearly he was growing frustrated.

Freediver: “I use very simple arguments for you because you can’t follow logic.”

Yep, another personal attack.

Dale Husband: “By the way, Freediver, your constant attitude of absolutist dogmatism is the exact opposite of scientific thinking, a contradiction I’ve always noticed.”

Finally, my third opponent arrived. This one was known as Shadow Bear or Silly Old Bear. Unlike the first two, this one was a friend of mine.   He is also Jewish.

Silly Old Bear:This has me a little concerned – because this reduces a person down to what he or she can produce in terms of what is beneficial to Society. It opens a whole lot of cans, I’d rather see kept closed.  It raises the question “Who is to decide what is beneficial to Society?” That has been tried – it didn’t work from a Humane point of view – both the Nazis and the Fascists used this “touch stone” in their politics, and it destroyed a lot of knowledge, experience and human history.  The idea that what is good for Society is what a human is worth only works if Society’s basic ethical and moral standards are such that they take into account that we do not always know what is good for Society.  What then should be the scientific test to determine this? How do you scientifically measure that which cannot be measured?”

Dale Husband:As I see it, the Nazis and fascists made a point of judging other races of people as inferior without any empirical justification. That was the opposite of scientific thinking and led to their downfall when they were proven wrong. It is true that we do not know the potential value of people and it cannot be measured empirically. But if we do not come up with an empirical reason to prohibit murder, what can we say to a person who rejects all religion and wants a reason to justify whatever he wishes to do, including murder? And keep in mind that many senseless killings have been done in the name of religion. There is the potential for corruption in all things, which is why free inquiry is so important. If we cannot question authority, it can destroy us.”

Silly Old Bear: That is not quite true – both the Fascists and the Nazis based their ideas about races of people, disabled – both mental and physical , homosexuals, political and religious beliefs on what they considered to be empirical evidence – such as homosexuals not being likely to reproduce, Jews being a genetic contamination, mental and physically disabled not being productive etc. All based on the science they had access to. Those empirical evidence might not be satisfactory to you and me, but that is only because you and I are measuring the evidence using another scale – based in what we consider ethical. Not because of the science as such.”  “Religion is not necessary for making sound ethical decisions or f.i not to murder. I have not always been a religious man – still I have always held the opinion that all people are equal with equal rights to life. This can be arrived at by simple logical deduction. Atheists and Secular Humanists are not unethical, murderous or amoral. It doesn’t exclude that there certainly do exist such atheists or secular humanists, just as there are unethical, murderous or amoral religious people.  Let’s not make Science another religion, Dale – it is quite defendable without needing all the trimmings of religion. Simple logic is enough.”   “Scientifically it cannot be proven that Homosexuality is not a choice, so if all I had to go on was science I might be inclined to agree with the fundamentalists that homosexuality is indeed a sin according to Torah. There would be nothing to tell me otherwise. But because I do indeed choose what dogmas to incorporate in my ethics I have gone out of my way to find other ways to view homosexuality and Torah, so that the two do not contradict each other. Where there are no scientific data, we still have to make a choice as to how to act ethically.”

Because Silly Old Bear didn’t use personal attacks or other stupid fallacies like Freediver had, I was able to end the debate on a civil note with him.