My Thoughts On: Free Kesha

 

If you aren't aware of the controversy surrounding popstar Kesha at the moment then the reason is because that she was denied a preliminary injunction that would prevent her from recording her upcoming six studio albums with a man named Dr. Luke, which is what her current contract states. Dr. Luke is alleged to have abused Kesha both physically and verbally throughout their working relationship, even at one stage causing her to enter rehab in 2014. Dr Luke is a pivotal figure in Kesha's life, and even discovered Kesha, owning the rights to record with her since 2005. Their current contract together has been renewed in 2008 and 2009, so it's not like she's being fraudulently exploited by Dr Luke and the music business. However along with the physical abuse Kesha is claiming that Dr Luke purposefully stalled her career, and prevented her from having any creative control over her music, which I find hard to believe considering how average she is as an artist. I also find this a strange accusation at the same time considering Kesha must have known how the pop world works before signing that deal back in 2005. If that's not the way things work in the mainstream music business then give me one example of a rookie in the pop genre who has creative freedom? From a neutral perspective this is a very serious and groundbreaking case in the music world, and if this is true then I'm glad Kesha has had the bravery to directly confront her alleged attacker in a court case despite her losing battle. The aftermath was one largely in favour of Kesha's side of the ordeal, going against the court ruling. But is there any reason for this biased outcry in the face of justice?

The simplest and most overwhelming point to make is that Kesha has zero evidence for this alleged rape. Her claims are tenuous at best, and aside from her own statement there is no physical reason for the court to believe this alleged rape ever happened. That's law 101, and an obstacle that this Twitter campaign has failed to address. What I also don't understand is that if a rape really did occur then why wouldn't Kesha be in court trying to get Dr. Luke criminally convicted? Instead the rape has taken a backseat to a civil case centred around Kesha being released from her contract, with only an accusation of rape being attached to this case as evidence. It's clear from this case that her primary goal is to remove herself from the contract, presumably giving her creative freedom that her current contract that was signed before she became famous restricts her from doing. The thing is that Dr. Luke himself has even claimed that Kesha is free to record music without him, so is this really about rape and not just a personal disdain to Kesha's restrictive contract? If the purpose of this court case is primarily based around Kesha's contract then you do have to side with the court and determine that these rape and sexual assault allegations seem to be a perfect storm in very tenuous events, especially when there's so little evidence involved in the claims.

As for the #FreeKesha part of this argument, well that's just another example of people jumping on the hate bandwagon when they themselves haven't even looked at both sides of the argument. This fad on social media gets worse when there are genuinely people making wild accusations aimed at Sony stating that as a company they support rape. Where the hell did you get that idea from? You've just read something totally unfounded on the Internet, with the only evidence based on an allegation. This social trend reaches its lowest point when you get people such as Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande, who are all outside of the court case, publicly pledging their support for Kesha when they have as much knowledge on the case as I do. Turns out the neutral party knows something the court doesn't, and as a result thinks it can then judge the accused before a verdict has even been given. Dr Luke is perfectly entitled to file a counterclaim for defamation if he believes the allegations aren't true, so quit branding him as the villain in this; it's his well renowned reputation at stake too. Kesha's supporters have so little evidence that they end up claiming that she's obviously innocent because she's crying in court. Maybe they should have presented that flawless evidence at Oscar Pistorious' trial when he was found guilty despite crying. Obviously he couldn't of murdered anyone because he cried during his hearing. But hey, feelings are more important than facts right?

The evidence for this case becomes increasingly against Kesha when you consider that a similar lawsuit has happened in the past. This was back in 2008 when Kesha VOLUNTARILY sided with Dr Luke, which if we're to believe Kesha is three years after the alleged abuse started. Kesha won that particular court case and consequently it was decided she could fire her managers whenever she chooses. Hell, another three years later another almost identical case came along where she even claimed under oath that no intimate relationships had happened between her and Dr Luke since they met. Kesha even sent Dr Luke a birthday card thanking him for making her dreams come true. When all the previous evidence is compiled it becomes apparent that in one case or another Kesha is a liar trying to extort the court system to further her own pursuits, yet this deplorable act is being supported, and even victimised by the public. Is it any surprise why the court was sceptical when so much of the evidence goes against Kesha's recent claims?

Why should Sony be forced to release Kesha from her contract when they themselves haven't been proven to have mistreated her? Dr Luke is only allegedly an abuser and so still innocent in a court of law, and Sony have never acted outside of their contractual obligations. It's a shame that Kesha has to cry 'rape' in order for this case to be taken seriously despite having no evidence for the case, so what choice do the court have? This is a standard contract for the music industry, so Kesha's claims are effectively just idle whinging without any clear cut evidence, which despite whatever the Internet might think is not enough to convict a man with a serious crime. Are some going to be unhappy that I'm apparently supporting this idea of a rape culture? Yes they are, but is this incident of an alleged abuser winning in court really going to discourage women from going to the law? I think it's imperative that a court of law look at both sides of the argument instead of siding with the victim, and If anything I hope this kind of action that appeases the accused is taken more frequently instead of the pathetic #freeKesha campaign. If a response such as a social media outcry is normal then this leads to a society were alleged victims can actively lie over such a deplorable matter, and in fact that has happened already at an alarming frequency.

I'm not here to make the defining verdict on this issue, as that would simply be ignorant considering I haven't read all of the evidence submitted the court. However what I am here to do is look at this trial from an objective point of view and analyse this story from both sides of the argument. Obviously I can't be totally objective, and in fact I would prefer the verdict that states Kesha can no longer make music to give my ears a rest. I wish other people would approach this issue in the same way, as this trial doesn't excuse the people on Twitter who are condemning a man based on allegations alone. The court of law should always work on an 'innocent until proven guilty' method. Why should one man's career suffer over false allegations? This was a case that made me question whose life really has been ruined.

Christoforge Vs Creationism

As a student in the field of biology I feel it is my fundamental right to counter the crap spread around the Internet that undermines the very principles of my chosen subject. Evolution is for some reason still a controversial area of science despite it being one of the most easily proven fields in science. It was once said by Theodosius Dobzhansky, who interestingly was also a creationist, that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", unless of course you're a creationist. But in any case let's see where the subject of biology would be if morons had dominated the field and analyse their scientific methods. This is an exert from one of the leading creationist movements on the Internet allegedly disproving the existence of evolution.
____________________________________________________________________
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
____________________________________________________________________

Well this argument is over quicker than I expected. Of course I forgot that if you can't see something happening it obviously doesn't exist. You know that thing called oxygen? Another scientific creation that doesn't exist because you can't see it. Good news is that now I don't even have to mow the lawn anymore being as that doesn't grow, and it never will because I don't see it happening, and therefore according to this article an impossibility. This primitive logic is simply misrepresenting what evolution actually is. Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles within a population over a period of time, which as this text states may arise in the phenotypic change in an organism. At its most basic level evolution is something that cannot be seen anyway considering that phenotypes change in accordance with allele frequency, and although this genetic change is not observable, the phenotypic changes certainly do lead to observable evidence. This website would have you believe that these changes cannot be sampled, but in actual fact there are countless pieces of solid evidence that disprove this point, which aren't hard to find considering that in theory every species on Earth is under the same process. A great example of evolution in action is the medium ground finch on the Galapagos Islands that has been thoroughly studied in terms of population and morphology for around 30 years. Other similar studies include that of the colouration in wild Guppies, and the change in wildlife around the Chernobyl site.

This website manages to mix up basic phylogeny with the process of speciation, completely ignoring the fact that a biological species is commonly defined as a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. This is the reason why there isn't an emergence of a so called 'transitional species' such as a liger, which would bridge the gap between lions and tigers, when in reality that gap would have been bridged by a common ancestor. Speciation is not in fact microevolution, considering as microevolution is defined as the molecular changes in an organism, and this is in turn the basis for the model of macroevolution that this source states is impossible to cause the diversification of life. This point is then backed up with some false evidence surrounding fruit fly studies, which you will note is without citation. Fruit flies are indeed a model organism and have very short life cycles, so scientists often use them in laboratories to show evolutionary change within a species over multiple generations, and not as this website suggests, to create a whole new species. However what this website doesn't explain is that fruit flies have in fact been forced into reproductive isolation, which is a component of speciation, so in actual fact a new species has been created, proving that speciation is a process that can be artificially created by scientists.

Really? Are you absolutely sure there aren't any transitional fossils? I can think of two very famous transitional fossils off the top of my head. The most notable is the archaeopteryx that linked birds and dinosaurs, and more recently the tiktaalik that linked amphibians and fish. Apparently this website will have you believe these well preserved specimens are 'doubtful' despite conforming to every piece of reasoning this piece stated was necessary to prove evolution. In actual fact there are many recorded transitional fossils in the scientific record, but not according to this website who apparently live in denial. This piece then goes on to quantify the level of evolution within an organism and use that as evidence when in actual fact evolution isn't forward thinking, and certainly doesn't have a predetermined goal. Even if you do believe this archaic reasoning of falsely defining evolution, you still can't disprove evolution as a concept without providing any primary evidence.

Oh how unfortunate for me. Turns out I've been taught wrongly that Stanley Miller's revolutionary experiment is evidence for the origin of life. In actual fact I wasn't taught his experiment like this, rather that Miller's experiment proved that the components found in nature could produce amino acids, the building blocks of life, under natural conditions. Turns out that's not the case though, because this website told me otherwise without actually giving any evidence as to why Miller's experiment is irrelevant. The only points they make is just vague waffle stating that nobody else had done anything to further the research since, which is a bit like saying the moon landings were faked because humanity hasn't been to mars yet. And anyway, scientists have followed up on Miller's experiment, which I recommend you give a read before making such a false and ignorant comment as the one above. But no, Miller's and subsequent experiments since cannot possibly prove evolution because we said so. Fuck the evidence, that's just what scientists like me use to trick you.

Yes aside from the literally hundreds of organisms that have observably changed in human history, including humans, there is still apparently a lack of evidence. This statement from a source who uses hypothetical bullshit instead of evidence to try and disprove a scientific argument, so in reality are in no place to start criticising the validity of an argument that relies on evidence instead of assumptions that are so far unfounded. They still haven't produced any counter evidence to dispel the apparent myth that the further away an organism evolved from another over time has a relationship with the content of the genome. Again, basic information is also incorrect. DNA is not common to all organisms, in fact the majority of life is prokaryotic, and therefore uses RNA in the genetic sequence, which is much less stable, so I highly doubt that a number of well informed evolutionists are going to be claiming that incorrect statement.

Yes there are problems with the widely debated classification system. That's however a classification system and not relevant to the phylogenetic argument you're using in the example, which would have been a relevant point had you backed it up. All you're doing here is admitting that there is a wide diversity of life on the planet that Linnaean classification systems aren't always able to accurately sort, weakly linking this to the evolution debate. Furthermore the reference to vestigial organs was also weakly explained. If vestigial organs really aren't evidence for evolution then please explain what the wings of a penguin or a kiwi do? What do goosebumps achieve on human skin? What's the purpose of the hind legs found on a whale? Is this honestly evidence for the intelligent design you're banging on about? Evolution would only remove these drawbacks if there was an inherently negative consequence of this trait, so to simply dismiss them as useful to the organism doesn't disprove evolution in any way.

Anyone see the irony in this article saying evolutionary scientists have a 'creative imagination', when they themselves literally believe in a creator? However that's not the most stupid part of this paragraph, as the second law of thermodynamics will only decrease entropy in a closed system. Since the whole planet is one big open system this is an irrelevant point, and pretty damn hypocritical when earlier the article claimed that Stanley Miller's experiment was in isolated conditions and therefore couldn't apply to the natural world. If you do actually want a physics explanation of why this is bollocks then you'd be better off having it explained by people who know what they're talking about, and not an article that relies on illogical assumptions.

All in all this article does nothing of the sort to disprove the well credited discipline of evolutionary science. The theme is essentially that you shouldn't believe in such a preposterous science when you could believe in a far less plausible explanation that lacks any counter evidence to defeat the primary evidence. This author has the audacity to bang on about the lack of proof for evolution, whereas not once did I ever see a reliable explanation as to the evidence surrounding a higher creator, and only idle waffle that brought up some of the most elementary and basic points possible.

36 Questions Women Have For Men

I haven't decided to moan at Buzzfeed yet on my blog as I tend to ignore articles and videos that pander to the lowest common denominator in the most pathetic way possible. However Buzzfeed do occasionally produce absolute bollocks with some serious content that I find moronic, and this time it's asking men 36 questions that apparently women want to know. So let me help you out:

1. How does it feel to be the same sex as Donald Trump? Fine actually, we don't have an emotional attachment together just because we're the same gender. By that logic my response would be the question 'how does it feel to be the same sex as Myra Hindley?'

2. No, I don't need to hate romcoms because of my gender. However like the male stereotype I do hate the majority of them because they're just oversensitive and pretentious crap that never feels genuine or in anyway romantic. Take your example of 'The Notebook', which is a film that manages to hit all of the negative features about romantic comedies without ever pleasing the viewer. I don't even like the music of Beyonce either, who the last time I checked wasn't a romcom. You want to know why most men don't like romantic comedies? Well it's because the genre isn't tailored to the male demographic. Not exactly rocket science to work out is it.
3. We talk about boobs for hours? That's impressive considering there's a very finite scope in that topic, but okay, apparently that's common. Still not sure how that's related to talking about male characters in movies which for some reason women apparently find irritating. Maybe if you did engage with the conversation and analyse the characters from a different perspective you might start to hate the generic crap that women stereotypically like.
4. I'm learning new things here. But again, maybe the reason why men assume female leads won't appeal to them is because they're not primarily designed to.
5. I'll admit I'm surprised when female comedians can keep up with their male counterparts because the general trend in the comedy business is that female comedians are often far worse than their male equivalent. But to say I don't find women funny in general is just misguided.

6. Now I'm not a relationship guru by any means, but maybe if a man is putting time and investment into a person such as yourself then he at least expects the same back; that's just common courtesy. You could just ask him to leave instead of relying on him to read your mind, but no, it always has to be about you doesn't it?
7. Someone should have told Bill Clinton he was universally congratulated when he slept with a woman whilst in office, because I don't think that's the way the public viewed him. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's good for you credibility. Maybe you would understand this if you tried being a stud rather than simply opening your legs, and then you might see the difference.
8. I don't think this video is in any position to start criticising people for associating negative traits to a certain gender when it's all to eager to start generalising the whole male population.
9. When somebody asked me if I had a flush in a recent game of poker I replied 'no'. Turns out I did have that flush and won some chips as a result. It's called a bluff. I know that's me being pedantic, but then what do you expect for asking such a stupid question?
10. Leadership and catcalling. Yep, I'm sure they're closely related somehow in your minds. Putting your fingers in the air doesn't make the quote any more reliable, nor does it make it in anyway true.
11. I'm sorry that some men are dicks love. I'm afraid we can't all be perfect like you. Although having said that, I'm not sure many men would like your body; especially after seeing this video.
12. Maybe someone would send a 'dick pic' in the hope that a woman will like it, or maybe impressed by the specimen. Yes it's invasive, but I forgot the world revolved around your sexual needs.

13. Why would a man would treat his sister differently to a random woman on the street? Maybe because it's aimed at a personal relative. You know that phrase 'blood is thicker than water'? Yeah that didn't arise out of pure chance. I can assure you it would be the same response for a brother, so how this is a gender issue is still unclear. Please research concepts such as family relationships and kin selection before making such stupid comments like that ever again.
14. If the opponent in a debate is full of shit and your interruption gets the point across then that's absolutely fine. You're always going to be shouted out in a personal debate; but just because you can't stand your ground doesn't mean you should be given preferential treatment. Remember these women would presumably like equality, unless of course you happen to be in a meeting with them and then how dare you interrupt a woman.
15. Because spreading your legs is a comfortable position to sit in; is that allowed your honour? Standing with your arms aloft is not comfortable and cuts blood circulation to both arms, which is why the inverse doesn't exist.

16. Oh I wonder why women are on average perceived as the weaker sex? Could it possibly be because that's the truth. There's literally so much peer reviewed evidence that states men are stronger than woman, but if a browse through a scientific journal isn't your idea of fun then watching professional weightlifting will still prove my point. That's unfortunately how strength is determined, not what can fit out of your vagina.
17. When do men say it's bad for women to show any emotion? Surely you can understand their concerns when that emotion is excessive, but to say that men criticise emotion full stop is totally inaccurate.And just because something is human doesn't give you a right to abuse it. Shitting is also a sign your human, but doesn't give you an excuse to do it all the time in front of people.
18. Why are we proving our masculinity? Well first of all I doubt many men would try and prove it to you, you entitled bitch, but the main reason may be because that's a human Male's way of instigating pre-copulatory competition. This process is common in the natural world dear; in fact women have actually sexually selected men to be more 'masculine'.
19. I thought it was insensitive for both genders to pointlessly cuss, but there you go. Apparently this is evidence that words are gendered; kill me now. Then again, what isn't fucking gendered these days?
20. Maybe because doubting an alleged rape case is a reasonable and vital part of the legal process in the civilised world. I suppose you're right though, when has a woman ever lied about being raped?
21. Because mood swings are commonly caused by a woman's period. I hardly think this video is in any position to start criticising others for jumping to conclusions.
22. Makeup for dicks in order to false advertise; that's a new one on me.
23. No it's not strange that there are a minority governing the everyday lives of people because that's how politics works. You don't like that then emigrate. That minority have a democratic right to be in that position because of votes from the whole population, regardless of what your opinion is.
24. Because lesbians are arousing. Is that such a bad thing?
25. It's not pleasant being kicked in the balls, but finally a question that's actually inquisitive and not just common sense used to promote your own regime. Well done.
26. No I don't get tied of being 'manly', but I get tired of stupid questions like these.

27 Are men really scared of gender equality? Most men I know are scared of gender superiority, which is a feeling that isn't helped by bullshit videos such as this one.
28. Firstly I highly doubt you're payed less than me considering I'm a student, and secondly on a general scale women are payed less than men because they work less hours on average. It's called meritocracy.
29. 77 cents does not equal a dollar on this planet. The only question that should be asked here is why feminists keep trying to use this as a serious financial argument.
30. That's just the same question with a different figure plucked out of nowhere. Doesn't scream reliability for the statistic when the figures are so easily interchangeable does it?
31. Maybe men are intimidated by higher earning women because they like to be competitive in the workplace. You've already stated you're intimidated by a minority of men in higher positions of power than yourself, so you're not really in a position to start criticising men for this behaviour.
32. No idea why men would view opinionated women as bitches. Maybe you should try watching this video in one sitting and find out yourself.
33. Firstly I didn't realise that there were a predetermined number of jokes that were offensive to all women. I like to think that women also have a subjective view towards humour that doesn't comply with your two dimensional and self centred view of the art form. Secondly men shouldn't be forced to find certain material offensive because you demand it. Men have a right to be offended by material that solely offends them; it's called subjectivity. That's how comedy works.
34. If you want me to recognise my privilege then please provide me with some solid statistics or evidence before asking such a ridiculous and untrue question that only proves your own inherit bias.

Turns out creating questions isn't Buzzfeed's strong point. But then when you look at their regular content that's not surprising at all.