X, Y, Male, Female…

In most mammals, us included, biological sex is determined by a lottery between two letters: X and Y, the sex chromosomes. Inherit one X each from mom and dad, and develop ovaries, a womb and a vagina. Inherit an X from mom and a Y from dad, and develop testes and a penis.

But there are rare, mysterious exceptions. A small number of rodents have no Y chromosomes, yet are born as either females or males, not hermaphrodites. Now, scientists may be one step closer to figuring out how sex determination works in one of these rodents.

In a study published in Science Advances, Japanese scientists suggested that cells of the endangered Amami spiny rat, from Japan, are sexually flexible and capable of adapting to either ovaries or testes. When the researchers injected stem cells derived from a female rat into male embryos of laboratory mice, the cells developed into and survived as sperm precursors in adult males. The result was surprising since scientists have never been able to generate mature sperm from female stem cells, largely because sperm production normally requires the Y chromosome. (1)

Even matter itself shows us not to trust her.

It changes, adapts, follows rules and then breaks them.

And yet we believe that our mind is just matter.

But it is not. It is a living being.

It changes, adapts, follows rules and then breaks them…

See beyond your brain. Think beyond your eyes.

You are not who you are because of them.

You are the law breaker.

And they are the police…

Freedom of choice? Causality. Being “free” via slavery to the “laws”…

Professor Ted Honderich in his book On Determinism and Freedom (2005) argues that the notion of free will that lies behind all talk of choices and responsibility is incoherent, and cannot be assimilated to the account of physical reality the sciences have arrived at. In particular, Honderich objects to the notion of origination: that is, to the claim that an action can originate from a deliberate, conscious choice without prior physical cause. He argues that any decision is instead in reality an event or series of events in the neural pathways of one’s brain, and that all such events are embedded within physical causal sequences. (1)

We are free.
We are enslaved to the laws of physics.
We formulate the laws of physics. (observer/ quantum mechanics)

We are gods.

And we are bound by the laws we create.

Simply accept the antiphasis.
And the antiphasis will be no more…

BE AWARE: Pedophilia in modern era… The way to acceptance ?!?

From the child abuse inquiry of the British government (1) (something Thatcher knew) to the child sexual abuse scandal of the Catholic Church (2), the issue is already on our hands: How can we protect the children from assaults like this?

Well, recently a conference held by the University of Cambridge gave the “solution”: Do nothing! Because… pedophilia is something natural!!

Yes, you read correctly.

“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children”.

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again. The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis”, and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia”. (3)

One of the attendees and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange (what is THAT, you might ask…). “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”. (3)

And this is not the only case of such a blatant defence of pedophilia.

Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles”, he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia (what is THAT, you might ask…), “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities” … “Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case”. (!) (3)

What is wrong with us? How have we turned into this path? Can just a change in laws (4) prove effective? I am afraid not. We are down a dangerous slope and it is difficult to stop and turn back unless we hit a wall on our way down.

We name other eras as “dark” but it is we who actually live in the darkest era of them all. We have no compass – either in science or in life. We are lost with no where to go. We have flashlights instead of candles, but we do not know where to turn it to…

Just knowing isn’t good enough anymore.

Just analyzing data isn’t good enough anymore.

Just researching isn’t good enough anymore.

There was a time when people were righteous and yet illiterate.

We now have to strive to get to that level again…

Internet, Brazil, freedom via oppression…

Brazil’s internet now has its own bill of rights. On 23 April, the country’s president, Dima Rousseff, signed the Marco Civil da Internet, a bill that sets out new guidelines for freedom of expression, net neutrality and data privacy for the country’s 100 million internet users. (1)

Can freedom be determined by a… law?
Can freedom be determined on the basis of “obligations”?
Can freedom be determined on the bases of “you can’t do that”?

Only when law matures enough that we do not need (not even) one, will we be truly free…

Exit mobile version